Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-24 23:24:44
On 25/05/2017 08:44, Jonathan MÃ¼ller wrote:
> What about providing no default constructor? There are two valid choices so
> why surprise half the users?
> Yes, it makes it a bit harder to use in arrays, but how often would it need
> to be stored in arrays anyways.
Surprisingly often, if it ends up being used to represent the collection
of results from methods executed in sequence or in parallel (although
perhaps future<> is more suited to that task, since they're more likely
to be asynchronous).
Speaking of which, it seems like outcome<> is essentially just trying to
be a not-asynchronous version of future<> that can elect to transport a
std::error_code instead of a std::exception_ptr. So most likely its
design decisions should be inspired mostly from that (and any pain
points that people have experienced with that interface). Perhaps it
even should be designed in such a way that std::future itself could be
based on it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk