Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Outcome review - First questions
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-24 15:26:12
>> So yes the above is intrusive, it forces an outcome-y thing to always be
> This is what I don't like. It is if in order to use rang algorithms I
> would need to wrap any possible range. We want to be able to use any
> range without wrapping them.
Just to be clear, are you talking a range of expected or an expected of
range? Or something else?
I am unsure why this policy based extensibility design would be any
worse than your preferred design of linked up islands of separate
implementation? After all, one can pretend Outcomes are not implemented
this way, and are just islands of separate implementation also?
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk