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: 2017-05-21 14:52:36

Niall Douglas wrote:

> The vast majority do something like:
>
> apt-get install libboost-filesystem-dev

... which typically installs all Boost headers. I don't think that 
maintainers split those, it's a lot of work and Boost releases do not 
contain the information that's necessary to do it properly.

> > Speaking of which, can you please give me a few examples of what goes 
> > into the two codes (code1 and code2)?
>
> Totally up to the end user.

I know that it's totally up to the end user. I'm asking for a few real-world 
examples of use. What do you use them for, what do your users use them for?

> >> I'll leave it to reviewers to decide on whether defaulting to the C++ 
> >> 14 STL std::error_code or to boost::error_code is the most appropriate.
> >
> > I'm not sure you understand me here... I'm saying that there's no need 
> > to default to boost::error_code or even keep the stl11:: way of choosing 
> > between the two.
>
> Retaining standalone usability of Outcome is a high priority for me. A lot 
> of folk from SG14 are interested in using Outcome, and I intend to submit 
> Outcome into SG14's collection of low latency suitable libraries.

I'm now sure that you don't understand, because your answer makes no sense. 
I'm telling you TO NOT USE BOOST::ERROR_CODE, and you tell me that you'd 
rather retain standalone usability. Hello?