Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Possible extensions/changes to std::experimental::expected
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 11:12:22
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> > Also, they way I look at this solution is not "when I get this value I
> > have to check ...", but "when I produce this value I have to make
> > sure...". Is there no way to acheive this in the language?
> By not providing a default constructor, I suppose. Otherwise not, there's
> return value elision so if you do
> result<T> function()
> result<T> r;
> // do things
> return r;
> nothing is ever called on 'r' on your side if you forget to initialize it.
Actually, there is a way, by providing two types, one default-constructible
with a singular empty state, one without. In the code above, you will still
declare the function to return result<>, which can never be empty and has no
default constructor, but declare `r` to be of type result_option, or
optional_result, or optional<result>, or whatever. Then the `return r` line
will convert and check.
(Or you could use `result<result<T>> r` and return `r.value()`, which is a
funny exercise in ambiguity.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk