On May 15, 2014 11:28:59 PM EDT, Edward Diener
On 5/15/2014 9:42 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
alex
writes: I found it confusing that the function "from" is used for conversion; I would expect there to be an equivalent "to" that does the reverse of "from", but there is not.
I personally did not see the need for convert::to. So I do not have it. What would be a use-case where you might need convert::to and convert ::from would not do?
I would therefore prefer "get", "do","parse" or "convert".
Well, to me "convert<int>::from<string>" seems like a good "translation" from English "convert int to string" to C++.
I think you just misspoke here Vladimir, and meant "convert to int from string".
I noticed that and was going to say that he was arguing for "to" rather than "for". The alternatives do not read well and having the result type on the left, plus the input type near the argument justifies the use of "from". [snip entire remainder of Vladimir's message, including the ML footer] Please don't over-quote. ___ Rob (Sent from my portable computation engine)