Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] outcome without empty state?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-27 00:00:14

Niall Douglas wrote:

> Where I'm aiming, as you'll see in the summary design document I'll post 
> shortly, is that the implicit conversion semantics will provide the 
> ability to use a less representative variety to construct things, but 
> return into a more representative variety.

This holds in principle but I'm not sure that result<T> should convert into 
the hypothetical result_e<T>. From the discussion so far, I got the 
impression that we don't want to return empty results from functions; it 
seems to follow that result_e<T> would not be a return type, but the type of 
the local variable in the function that is initially empty but eventually 
acquires either a value or an error before being returned as result<T>.