Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change:-0.03%⚠️

Comparison is base(66aa7db) 95.52% compared to head(fdda28c) 95.50%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@##           master     #212      +/-   ##==========================================- Coverage   95.52%   95.50%   -0.03%==========================================  Files          16       15       -1       Lines        1072     1067       -5     ==========================================- Hits         1024     1019       -5  Misses         48       48

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report?Share it here.

I'm not a maintainer. This is just a fly-by comment.

Isn't thishttps://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/to_string.html
for the common case and
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/to_chars.html for the rest?

Adding new names for things that have been in the standard library for years just splits developer mindshare and increases maintenance burden. to_chars, unlike the warning in the code here, doesn't have the risk of buffer overruns.

Isn't thishttps://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/to_string.html
for the common case and

Nope, that usesstd::string, while Arduino has its own String type (partly for simpler API, partly because I thinkstd::string (and most of libstdc++) is not enabled/available on AVR).

Well, if the project is going to keep independently implementing standard c++, please at least consider using the same name and APIs and just use a wrapper for the funky return type so as to not further wall off compatibility between code written for Arduino, which is not always running on ancient processors. More importantly, skill sets of people that "program for Arduino" and people that develop in ISO C++ will be helped by not having to unlearn that normal coding doesn't apply and standard things have special names.