Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-25 10:08:42

Le 25/05/2017 à 01:24, Gavin Lambert via Boost a écrit :
> On 25/05/2017 08:44, Jonathan Müller 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).
>
I need to store a collection of results even if the tasks are not 
executed concurrently. Not all application need the complexity of 
concurrency.

Vicente