Boost logo

Boost :

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.)

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