Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] non-interface-related concerns
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-27 21:47:16

>> I have also received quite a bit of private email begging me to keep
>> Outcome free of a hard Boost dependency if accepted.
> [snip]
>> Actually there is overwhelming evidence that Boost **users** do not want
>> a dependency on Boost. But I've been saying that for years now.
> It seems like these users are best satisfied with just
> i.e. They wouldn't even need Outcome to be
> part of the Boost collection of libraries, if they desire Outcome to
> be standalone and independent of Boost.

That's not what I've been told.

They want Boost libraries without all the hassle that comes with Boost
libraries. I keep saying this for years, but no one here on boost-dev
appears to listen.

> Meanwhile, those Boost users who do have some expectation or desire
> that libraries included in the Boost distribution benefit from all the
> work done in other libraries (e.g. compiler workarunds, compiler
> feature detection), or simply not duplicate code that another Boost
> library has an optimal implementation of, would have different
> expectations of a "Boost" Outcome.

The customisation points are available for any end user to change a
minimum default implementation provided by Outcome to any other
implementation, including a Boost implementation. I think that a
perfectly fine situation if it avoids a hard Boost dependency, it's not
like anybody is losing out here.

In numbers terms, far more people have asked for Outcome to remain free
of a Boost dependency than the relatively few here on boost-dev. As with
all the other changes I've agreed to, I'm following the numbers, if a
clear majority want something, I try to provide it if I can.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at