Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] High level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-27 17:38:39
2017-05-27 18:26 GMT+02:00 Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> >> and I've retained the current wide result<T> and outcome<T>, just
> >> renamed to checked_result<T> and checked_outcome<T>.
> > This isn't enough to compensate. One, checked_result is so much longer
> > to type that this is obviously an encouragement to use unchecked by
> > default, a questionable guideline.
> I would agree. But well, we were outvoted. And that probably means
> rejection of this library, as the presented library does not implement
> what the majority want (yet).
How do you count the votes? How many votes did you count? What option did I
I indicated my preference towards not having initiali empty state (default
constructor), on basis that I cannot think of a use case for it. Since you
are still trying to provide `optional_result`, it means you must see some
use case for it.
Having so many types doesn't look good to me either. I would be more
comfirtable with result<> having empty state but with additional observers
with narrow contract.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk