Re: [boost] [outcome] "sea of noexcept, islands of throwing"

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] "sea of noexcept, islands of throwing"
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-18 03:32:16

>> Does that make more sense?
> 
> Let's see. So now, I my understanding is the following. If a programmer
> decides that certain section of the program (the see of noexcept)  requires
> explicit control flow when it comes to handling "disappointments",
> Boost.Outcome is just the tool he needs because it offers a set of
> convenient types, tailored for optimum performance + convinience operators
> + a dedicated control flow statement hidden under macro BOOST_OUTCOME_TRY.
> 
> did I get it right?

Basically yes. If a programmer is feeling that they want to use
something like expected<T, E> to return values from functions, they may
wish to consider using Outcome instead as I think it'll be more pleasant
for them, generate tighter code and help enforce best practice in
writing low latency code (i.e. don't let your programmers customise the
E in expected<T, E>). As Outcome now also provides a compliant
expected<T, E> implementation, users can choose whichever suits them best.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/