Re: [boost] [outcome] Feedback on parts A and B of Tutorial mk III requested

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Feedback on parts A and B of Tutorial mk III requested
From: Asbjørn (lordcrc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-02 10:16:29

On 02.02.2017 00:19, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>
>> I overall liked the code examples, they worked much better for me than
>> the previous ones.
>
> Great. They're surprisingly hard to get right without annoying people.

I appreciate that this can be a very difficult task. It's a fine line between 
obscuring the library functionality with clutter and hiding important details.

>> However I do think the name "Tutorial" is a bit of a misnomer, and the
>> parts A, B and C should be renamed to "Background", "Rationale" and
>> "Introduction" respectively (or something similar).
>
> Hence Part A really does need to be a tutorial of some form.

I just react to the word tutorial. For me, any tutorial in the Outcome 
documentation should be strictly regarding Outcome, not something else.

I have no objections with part A having the _form_ of a tutorial though.

> Agreed. I intentionally left them out for the peer review because if I
> include them then they form part of the review, but you can expect
> string_view and gsl::span<> overloads to turn up if Outcome is accepted
> into Boost.

Excellent.

> Again if I did that then monads would form part of any review. So if a
> review ever comes, my response will be "the names are just a collection
> of ASCII bytes".

Fair enough. I know it's been a touchy subject.

Cheers
- Asbjørn