Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 12:54:39
2017-05-26 6:53 GMT+02:00 Vicente J. Botet Escriba via Boost <
> Le 26/05/2017 Ã 00:52, Gavin Lambert via Boost a Ã©crit :
>> On 26/05/2017 00:30, Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>> I need a default constructor even if uninitialized.
>>>> What do you think an uninitialized default constructor?
>>> Awful, of course. Gratuitous undefined behavior is never good.
> After some exchanges with Jonathan I believe now that we shouldn't have
> the uninitialized default constructor.
> My arguments were wrong and this makes the implementation less efficient
> and more complex.
> So either we have the status-quo or we delete it.
> I start to think that maybe the best would be to remove it :(
Let me just recall her the suggestion from Peter made in the other thread.
Mybe have two types:
`expected<T, E>` does not have the empty state or default constructor -- it
is used as function's return type
`prepare_expected<T, E>` is either T or E or Empty -- you use it inside
function to build expected<T, E>:
expected<T, E> f()
prepare_expected<T, E> ans;
// populate (or not) ans
return ans; // in this conversion you can do all sorts of checks
When it comes to converting from `prepare_expected<T, E>` to `expected<T,
E>`, you have plenty of choices: require manual conversion, narrow-contract
to be checked, a defensive if and throw... I am just not sure if
performance can be negatively impacted with this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk