Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-15 23:02:03

Niall Douglas wrote:

> As much as I've kicked up a fuss in some places by intentionally deviating 
> from LEWG Expected to force some attention at where I think there are 
> problems, after this review I'll go ahead and conform as tightly as I 
> reasonably can and I'll track the LEWG proposal over time. A deviating 
> implementation muddies the waters, is confusing for end
users, and helps no one.

A conforming expected<> is fine, but result<> and outcome<> do not have to 
provide the same interface. I'd rather see them address the function return 
use case in a clean, efficient, clutter-free way, rather than trying to be 
something else.

(I'd also rather see expected<> address that same use case instead of trying 
to be usable as a long list of something else, but that's, as you would say, 
out of scope for this review.)