I'm still worried about the "non-allocating" initial description in the documentation. It rarely allocates, but it might. Even if only in edge cases and with a function that doesn't throw on allocation failure. So the initial documentation sentence describing the library is misleading.
I am updating the docs to highlight this case.
The return value on result_out_of_range is also something to think about. After considering opinions on both sides here and elsewhere, I tend to think we should not deviate from the standard in this case. Deviating from the standard also seems like a headache to the author.
Between the reviews and slack there seems to be more people for swapping the behavior of from_chars and from_chars_strict. Any opinions on what the new function would be named? Something like from_chars_erange since it from_chars with modified ERANGE handling?
It would be good to have some fuzzing tests in the library.
Since this was a condition of Reuben's acceptance the PR can be found: https://github.com/cppalliance/charconv/pull/134
## What is your evaluation of the documentation?
I am going through Peter's giant write-up on how to make the docs better which I believe will hit all of your points, but I will double check across all the reviews.
I recommend to ACCEPT Charconv into Boost.
Thank you for taking the time to review, and providing feedback. Matt