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

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-23 06:50:13

2017-05-23 1:56 GMT+02:00 Jared Wyles via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> Hello,
>
> One of the questions that is inevitably asked when a proposal to switch to
> using something like outcome is that of exceptions. Why outcome over
> exceptions etc which you briefly touch on in your ACUU talk. With that in
> mind, when attempting to sell this library having the motivating example on
> the boost.outcome docs using exceptions really makes starting the
> discussion
> harder. I understand one can never escape exceptions, but it shouldn't be
> used as the first example a new user sees. I would like to see this example
> updated to show how to handle errors with out the need for exception
> handling around accessing *value*. Personally, I see something similar to
> https://ned14.github.io/boost.outcome/md_doc_md_03-tutorial_
> b.html#expected_payload
> as a much better example to help sell outcome and therefore better suited
> as
> the motivating example for the front page of the docs.
>

This means, the initial example should use `boost::outcome::result`
(instead of `boost::outcome::outcome`). And then function that inspects the
result could read:

```
void test()
{
if (auto r = fun)
  use_int_value(r.value());
else
  inspect_error_code(r.error());
}
```

Regards,
&rzej;