Re: [boost] [outcome] Requesting second pre-review of Boost.Outcome tutorial

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Requesting second pre-review of Boost.Outcome tutorial
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-25 12:02:22

On 1/25/17 5:56 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:

>> <blockquote>
>>
>> This library provides a type that can represent a function's output,

I would  use the phrase "can represent a function's return value" or 
perhaps "result".  When I read this I substituted the word "outcome" in 
my brain and it seemed to me tautological.

>> ...
>>
>> </blockquote>

>
> This is a nice description. Thank you. But as you'll see in v3 of the
> docs, I've completely rearchitected the message. Now Outcome looks like
> it's primarily an implementation of LEWG Expected, and it provides a few
> refinements of Expected which most users won't care about
> or will refuse to use.

Well, how about just calling it "expected" and "selling" it as an 
alternative to std::expected?  There's lot's of precedent for this.  We 
have boost::shared_ptr, boost::enable_if, etc.  These have features that 
the std versions don't have and sometimes are indispensable for this reason.

> Not only has your feedback and discussion been very valuable, I don't
> think the v3 tutorial would look like it does now without you.

make sure that your documentation has an acknowledgements section so you 
can mention this.

> Do let me know if the v3 tutorial now makes sense to you. I even dove
> into "noexcept as can't fail" vs "noexcept can fail" as a nod to you :)

I'm gratified that you've taken the task of documentation as an integral 
part of developing the library.  I've been flogging this idea in the 
boost incubator.  I've got a lot to say about this there.

Robert Ramey