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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk