Re: [boost] Boost.Charconv review runs January 15th - 25th, 2024

...

...

Can I request that this library flips the defaults>>> so that boost::from_chars is 100%-compatible>>> with std::from_chars, and you also get boost::from_chars_plus that behaves like strtod? Your reasoning is sound, and I have no issue>> with flipping them Reviewers: If this default-flipping-befavior is of> importance, please do note this fascination> discussion. This is because it is seems like> a somewhat significant recognition at a> progressive time point in the review. Sorry, I had a typographical error in thatexpression. Reviewers: If this default-flipping-befavior is ofmajor importance, please do note this fascinatingdiscussion. This is because it is seems likea somewhat significant recognition at aprogressive time point in the review. Thank you. Christopher On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 06:42:38 PM GMT+1, Christopher Kormanyos wrote:

...

Can I request that this library flips the defaults>> so that boost::from_chars is 100%-compatible>> with std::from_chars, and you also get boost::from_chars_plus that behaves like strtod? Your reasoning is sound, and I have no issue> with flipping them Reviewers: If this default-flipping-befavior is ofimportance, please do note this fascinationdiscussion. This is because it is seems likea somewhat significant recognition at aprogressive time point in the review. Christopher On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 06:25:13 PM GMT+1, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:

On 1/23/24 20:14, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:

...

Can I request that this library flips the defaults, so that boost::from_chars is 100%-compatible with std::from_chars, and you also get boost::from_chars_plus that behaves like strtod?

Your reasoning is sound, and I have no issue with flipping them. In the docs I can highlight that the default behavior will likely change in the future based on whatever resolution LWG comes up with.

I think I'd prefer that the "default" interface (that is, the one that users will likely use by default) to be the one that implements the "right" behavior (i.e. the behavior people find most useful) and keeps implementing that behavior regardless of the standard committee decisions on the standard. We recently had Boost.Scope review, and in its results it was highlighted that people generally prefer better interfaces to strict conformance with the standard. Boost libraries don't have to be strict implementation of the standard, especially when we can do better. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost