Re: [boost] [outcome] How to write a review considering the broad scope

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] How to write a review considering the broad scope
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-26 23:01:11

On 5/26/17 15:49, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>>>> 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?
> 
> Exactly correct.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Niall
> 

+1 ... Thank you Niall!

-- 
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com