Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] How to drop the formal empty state
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-27 22:38:18

2017-05-28 0:17 GMT+02:00 Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> >> But Outcome was always written for a SG14 low latency type audience. The
> >> group is a bit misnamed, they actually much prefer predictable latency
> >> over low latency. Some over there even compile release code with -O0 to
> >> ensure they get exactly the performance of the source code written, no
> >> surprises. That sort of thing.
> >>
> >> As I mentioned before, if identical performance for success vs failure
> >> is not what you want, and you really care about 20 CPU cycles,
> >> expected<T, E> will always bias towards either T or E.
> >
> >
> > Interesting. Did I missed that in the docs? According to your description
> > it should be really relevant to people who make a decision whether to go
> > with your library or not.
> People who actually care about 20 CPU cycles per branch on state will
> without fail insist on examining the source code before deciding on
> using a library. They wouldn't trust claims in its documentation.
> Therefore I didn't bother documenting it publicly, I let the code speak
> for itself.

You do not make these claims so that people just trust you. You make them
to encourage people to examine the sources. Also, I believe that if I were
interested in this performance guarantee, I would like it documented,
because it is a guarantee that what I see in the code is not a happenstance
of this GIT SHA, but a feature you commit to supporting.

I, for one, am not interested in these optimizaitons, but if I have seen
them documented, I would have a slightly better understanding on what goals
of this library are.


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