Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-24 05:28:21
On 24-Aug-15 1:17 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> It will be easier to know the scope of the review and what is left for
>> the near future. Is the monad part of the review?
> I am happy to accept bug reports on monad<T>. But I don't think the
> AFIO review is reviewing monad<T>, nor do you need to.
> I mean, if you like the design of boost::shared_future<T>, then by
> definition you like the design of monad<T>. I would have said
> monad<T> is therefore uncontroversial, as it's already in
> Boost.Thread and is very well understood (especially by you
Personally, I have concerns about the naming. E.g. if one reads
one understands that monad is a fairly general concept, with several implementation
in Haskell, and the "Monad" class has multiple implementations:
The monad<T> you are proposing seems related to Haskell 'Maybe', but not very
much to anything else. I would suggest that a different name be used. It would
certainly be unfortunately if a controversial name is necessary part of using
an accepted library.