[boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)

Subject: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)
From: charleyb123 . (charleyb123_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-25 22:43:58

Hi, Everyone,

First a (very-)big "thank-you!" to all participating in the ongoing (and
vigorous) debate and review for the Outcome library.  The spirited
discussion touches on tricky issues for composition and error handling
(with and without C++ exceptions enabled), where the community is clearly
searching for best convention and common ground.

Thus far:

  (a)- some 300+ emails discussing Outcome (and more emails off-list)

  (b)- participation from:

      *- Andrzej Krzemienski
      *- D25fe0be
      *- Deniz Bahadir
      *- Emil Dotchevski
      *- Gavin Lambert
      *- Glen Fernandes
      *- Gottlob Frege (Tony)
      *- Hartmut Kaiser
      *- Ion Gaztanaga
      *- Jonathan Muller
      *- Niall Douglas
      *- Paul Bristow
      *- Pete Bartlett
      *- Peter Dimov
      *- Robert Ramey
      *- Thomas Heller
      *- Vicente J. Botet Escriba
      *- Vinnie Falco
      *- ...(apologies if I've missed anyone)

  (c)- Some points-of-discussion relate to:

      *- Outcome efficiency (copy/move) on today’s compilers
      *- Outcome speed/overhead (exceptions)
      *- Outcome purpose/motivation
      *- Outcome Tutorials, documentation
      *- Outcome “formal-empty-state”, default-initialization
      *- Outcome compiling, compiler support
      *- Outcome ABI, namespace usage, use of preprocessor
      *- Outcome alternative APIs
      *- std::expected proposal, possible changes

  (d)- Reviews to date (sent publicly to the list):

      *- Paul Bristow -- accept, conditional (Tue-23-May)
      *- Deniz Bahadir -- accept, unconditional (Wed-24-May)
      *- Thomas Heller -- (almost a review), ?reject, "not-ready-yet?"
(Wed-24-May)

  (e)- Significant other discussion also contributes to evaluation of
Outcome as a Boost library.  However, I encourage further reviews to make
clear any conclusions from these discussions that I might have missed.

The review continues for several more days, ending Sun-28-May.  Please
consider posting a review to the boost mailing list, or privately to the
Review Manager (to me).  Here are some questions you might want to answer
in your review:

- What is your evaluation of the design?

- What is your evaluation of the implementation?

- What is your evaluation of the documentation?

- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any
problems?

- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?

- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

And most importantly:

- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?

For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see:
http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html

Thank you very much for your time and efforts.

--charley