Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] non-interface-related concerns
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-28 11:01:12

On 05/27/2017 06:43 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

> I can see why you might think that organisation superior, and I did
> start out with that design. In fact, boost-lite used to define the exact
> same macros as Boost, precisely because of that organisation, the idea
> was that boost-lite was a substitute for Boost.

The standalone Outcome does not have to use its own namespace. It could
retain the boost::outcome namespace. That way we can remove yet another
dependency (the part of "boost-lite" previously known as APIBind.)

That gives us a clean separation where the Boost.Outcome repository is
"untainted" by any foreign submodules, and the standalone Outcome
repository is a Boost.Outcome without a Boost dependency.

How your Boost emulation layer is included in the standalone Outcome
repository is out of scope for this review, but CMake offers sufficient
choices (sub-directories, pkg-config, downloadable external projects,

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