On 5/11/23 17:40, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:

...

How is this different from boost lexical cast?

Robert,

Charconv has a much smaller scope than lexical cast. We convert character arrays into built-in arithmetic types and vice versa. That’s it. Since it has such a narrow scope we can heavily optimize these conversions, which we have sunk a lot of time and effort into.

I remember there were a lot of optimizations poured into Boost.Spirit.Qi/Karma. How does your library compare to those implementations?