Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-29 07:58:20
On 29 Aug 2015 6:31 am, "Michael Caisse" <mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 08/24/2015 10:21 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> On 8/24/15 9:59 AM, Sam Kellett wrote:
>>> so taking
>>> the word monad and the namespace boost::monad seems to be a bit scary
>>> in the future they could be used for a totally generic full fat haskell
>>> type monad in c++ as you say.
>> I raised a few concerns about the "monad" "library" when it was first
>> discussed on the list and never really bought into it as a boost library
>> (as constituted) and don't think it should be included now. Though I'm
>> skeptical of Niall's monad, I've got not complaint if Nail want's to
>> make boost::afio::monad and later try to get it "promoted" to
>> boost::monad. Doing this would demote Niall's monad to the status of
>> implementation detail or private API and hence wouldn't irrevocably
>> occupy any coveted territory. It would also make the review of AFIO
>> much easier and more likely to pass. It would also be an easy change
>> for Niall to (promise to) make.
> Hi Niall -
> There have been several suggestions (implicit and explicit) to move this
type into the boost::afio namespace, but I haven' seen a response from you.
Have I just missed it?
As long as it is not in the detail namespace it will be subject to review
though and expected to be properly named and documented. I will much more
willing to accept a Boost::afio::monad than a Boost::monad though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk