On 5/5/2011 4:35 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
Vicente BOTET<vicente.botet<at> wanadoo.fr> writes:
Sorry. I believed we had a consensus ...
Did you actually say 'consensus'? LOL
Could we state if the default_value CP is adopted? How think is not a good thing and why?
I am certainly looking at the idea from my original 'convert' point of view where such a thing was not needed. I find the need to write something like
template<> default_value<example> { static example apply() { return example(3); } };
quite bothersome as I know I really do not have to. In the original wacky design the fallback and the default were synonyms. Now you are introducing an additional piece of machinery/code that is needed to deploy a class with conversion and I have to provide the default and the fallback. With that in mind I am not sure I am personally warming up for default_value concept yet.
Did you ever use boost.convert on a non-defaultable type? I've never needed that. -Matt