Re: [boost] [outcome] High level summary of review feedback accepted so far

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] High level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-27 17:38:39

2017-05-27 18:26 GMT+02:00 Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> >> and I've retained the current wide result<T> and outcome<T>, just
> >> renamed to checked_result<T> and checked_outcome<T>.
> >
> > This isn't enough to compensate. One, checked_result is so much longer
> > to type that this is obviously an encouragement to use unchecked by
> > default, a questionable guideline.
>
> I would agree. But well, we were outvoted. And that probably means
> rejection of this library, as the presented library does not implement
> what the majority want (yet).
>

How do you count the votes? How many votes did you count? What option did I
vote for?

I indicated my preference towards not having initiali empty state (default
constructor), on basis that I cannot think of a use case for it. Since you
are still trying to provide `optional_result`, it means you must see some
use case for it.

Having so many types doesn't look good to me either. I would be more
comfirtable with result<> having empty state but with additional observers
with narrow contract.

Regards,
&rzej;