Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic return type?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-27 01:02:55

Le 27/05/15 01:41, Niall Douglas a écrit :
> On 26 May 2015 at 23:26, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> So the question is, do we have the proposed interface for expected, or
>> something else?
>> Would be the 'to be named type" a literal type?
> I would far prefer if Expected were layered with increasing amounts
> of complexity, so you only pay for what you use.
> I also think you need to await the WG21 variant design to become
> close to completion. It makes no sense to have an Expected not using
> that variant implementation, you're just duplicating work.
My apologies. No seriously, this are implementation details. Could you
describe the interface changes that expected need.
> Other than that, I found the interface generally good. I only ever
> needed about 10% of it personally, but it would be nice if the
> remainder were available by switching it on maybe with an explicit
> conversion to a more intricate subclass. The more intricate subclass
> would of course live in a separate header. Pay only for what you use.
Could we define this interface?


P.S. Expected is a open source project. Anyone can participate, either
by creating issues, sending pull request, ...

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at