Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] non-interface-related concerns
From: Bjorn Reese (breese_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-28 13:12:43

On 05/28/2017 02:10 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

> If Outcome is accepted in std-flavoured form, I already intend to delete
> the namespace bindings code entirely. They have only hung around due to
> this upcoming review.

In that case, what is left of "boost-lite"?

Furthermore, can you describe what you mean by "std-flavoured form"?
Does it mean that Outcome is hardwired to <system_error>, without
support for Boost.System? Are there more differences?

> There is no "taint" from the boost-lite submodule. It can be included
> into any translation unit without ill effect. It is a good neighbour to
> all other C++, including different versions of itself.

"boost-lite" is not reviewed by Boost, and therefore not suitable for
use in a Boost library, whether as submodule or something else. That is
why I am suggesting an alternative.

> You may find a reply to Robert sent recently with a description of one
> post-approval Boost integration strategy I might take (use boost-lite
> submodule if checked out, else fall back onto hard Boost dependency).

You may not get approval until this is resolved.

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