Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-29 09:34:27

On 28 Aug 2015 at 22:30, Michael Caisse wrote:

> 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?

It's more that the suggestion is irrelevant with respect to the
library. The code base as presented for review already exclusively
uses boost::afio::monad<T>. It is only the just-added workshop
tutorial which uses monad directly which made people think monad is
not an internal library, and which I now realise was a mistake due to
bad optics.

> I'm afraid that AFIO isn't able to be reviewed because there are so many
> questions about other someday-to-be libraries in the boost namespace.
> What are your thoughts?

I think many if not most other reviewers have not found the namespace
layout nor dependent libraries an obstacle to making good reviews.

I'll put it another way: the discussion to date has covered pretty
much every thing I expected would be found of interest during a Boost
review. This is why I felt AFIO was ready for review - the library
had progressed to a point where I alone could go no further without a

Even if rejected, these last nine days or so have been highly
valuable. They have confirmed that my understanding of the tradeoffs
in the design matches that of the community's. A big shock was how
bad my documentation is, and how I really do need to go a lot slower
in the tutorial than I have.

My CppCon presentation should be much the better for this review and
I am incorporating the name changes and feedback into the
presentation materials. Renaming monad to outcome is literally a five
minute job, as is rewriting how monad is bound into to code examples
to `using BOOST_AFIO_V2_NAMESPACE::outcome`.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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