Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
I think uint8_t falls under extremely vague territory because of C/C++'s lack
of distinguished between character and integer types. There is enough type
information to handle uint8_t correctly but I think you should be reading it as
an int and casting it to a uint8_t outside the conversion. Perhaps uint8_t
shouldn't be supported. Conversely maybe support for char as is should be cut
such that only strings are supported to allow int8/uint8 to work just like any
other integer.
Original comment by nev...@gmail.com
on 21 Apr 2013 at 10:08
My solution so far is to just not support int8/uint8 to avoid confusion.
Original comment by zouhair....@gmail.com
on 29 Apr 2013 at 4:53
Yeah, this is confusing. @nevion, I see both sides of what you're arguing :)
I'll leave this open for now, but probably won't do anything.
Original comment by jbe...@gmail.com
on 3 May 2013 at 1:14
Issue 251 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by jbe...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2015 at 9:21
I started looking into this more, and it looks like boost::lexical_cast has the
same issue - so much so that they even have a FAQ listed:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_40_0/libs/conversion/lexical_cast.htm#faq
Q: Why does lexical_cast<int8_t>("127") throw bad_lexical_cast?
A: The type int8_t is a typedef to char or signed char. Lexical conversion to
these types is simply reading a byte from source but since the source has more
than one byte, the exception is thrown.
Please use other integer types such as int or short int. If bounds checking is
important, you can also call numeric_cast:
numeric_cast<int8_t>(lexical_cast<int>("127"));
Q: What does lexical_cast<std::string> of an int8_t or uint8_t not do what I
expect?
A: As above, note that int8_t and uint8_t are actually chars and are formatted
as such. To avoid this, cast to an integer type first:
lexical_cast<std::string>(static_cast<int>(n));
Therefore, I've decided to officially follow their lead and preserve the
current behavior.
Original comment by jbe...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2015 at 9:22
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
zouhair....@gmail.com
on 19 Apr 2013 at 6:55