Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] How to write a review considering the broad scope
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 22:49:48
>>> That way everybody gets the Outcome they want. I will of course typedef
>>> outcome<T> and result<T> to whatever the consensus recommendation is
>>> from here, but say if Peter really wants the default constructor to make
>>> a singular empty state, he gets that. If I want a totally unavailable
>>> default constructor, I get that. And so on.
>> This will clarify my review. If after all the discussion you find that
>> this is the way to go, clearly I'll not support you.
> I think what Niall is saying here is that In the public API, you will get
> `expected<T, E>`, `outcome<T>` and `result<T>`, but he will provide a
> "secret API" that normal programmers will never know about, but people like
> me and you, who have participated in all these discussions, and learned
> about it, may of curiosity quite easily build a new type of `expected` and
> experiment with it, and have useful feedback to LWG about practical
> consequences of different design decisions.
> Niall, did I got your idea correctly?
I am currently preparing a "high level summary" of Outcome after all the
changes I've agreed to, to help refine and focus further discussion of
whether to accept or reject the library.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk