Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-20 18:45:20
Niall Douglas wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand. If you prefer not a script-generated
> > boostorg/outcome repo, what do you prefer?
> There's script generated within my build system. That's okay, it's already
> doing that, indeed that's going to get much worse with issue #25.
> Then there's script generated whereby a new git repo is one-way
> synthesised by cron script from another git repo (like ASIO). I'd prefer
> not to have to do this.
I still don't understand. Let me describe what I would like to see, and
you'll tell me if you see things the same way.
What I'd prefer to see is, in boostorg/outcome:include/boost/outcome, in
addition to the outcome_v1.0.hpp header as currently generated, an
outcome.hpp file that includes the headers in v1.0, as it currently does
when BOOST_OUTCOME_DISABLE_PREPROCESSED_INTERFACE_FILE is defined. I also
would like this to work without boost-lite, pcpp, gsl-lite being present at
all in the boostorg/outcome repo (or on the user's system).
Furthermore, when someone issues a pull request against
boostorg/outcome:include/boost/outcome/v1.0/something.hpp, I'd like to see
this pull request kicking off a travis build as we're now used to, with this
travis build actually testing Outcome with the pull request applied.
Does this make sense?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk