Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Feedback on parts A and B of Tutorial mk III requested
From: AsbjÃ¸rn (lordcrc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-02 10:16:29
On 02.02.2017 00:19, Niall Douglas wrote:
>> I overall liked the code examples, they worked much better for me than
>> the previous ones.
> Great. They're surprisingly hard to get right without annoying people.
I appreciate that this can be a very difficult task. It's a fine line between
obscuring the library functionality with clutter and hiding important details.
>> However I do think the name "Tutorial" is a bit of a misnomer, and the
>> parts A, B and C should be renamed to "Background", "Rationale" and
>> "Introduction" respectively (or something similar).
> Hence Part A really does need to be a tutorial of some form.
I just react to the word tutorial. For me, any tutorial in the Outcome
documentation should be strictly regarding Outcome, not something else.
I have no objections with part A having the _form_ of a tutorial though.
> Agreed. I intentionally left them out for the peer review because if I
> include them then they form part of the review, but you can expect
> string_view and gsl::span<> overloads to turn up if Outcome is accepted
> into Boost.
> Again if I did that then monads would form part of any review. So if a
> review ever comes, my response will be "the names are just a collection
> of ASCII bytes".
Fair enough. I know it's been a touchy subject.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk