Re: [boost] Ternary logic programming (was: Re: [variant] Maintainer)

Subject: Re: [boost] Ternary logic programming (was: Re: [variant] Maintainer)
From: Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira (vini.ipsmaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-02 14:36:41

2015-07-02 14:28 GMT-03:00 Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>:

> I chose the errored/excepted state to be the indeterminate, because I
> felt that null and value_type states are exactly what they are, but
> an error_code and especially an exception_ptr is quite literally
> unknown until you interrogate/rethrow it.
>

Let's look like there is not any support for async code at all. You always
know whether it's T or error_code/exception. There was a mention to
"impurism" in the thread earlier, but I got lost.

If it's "pure" and "sync-only", then you know false will map to error. The
behaviour shouldn't change when you add code to also support async code.

Somewhere in the thread, there were mentions to "this is not async, future
is the one that will be async". But I got lost on this one too. Too much
motivation spread around.

-- 
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://about.me/vinipsmaker