Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-30 15:33:30
Le 30/05/2017 Ã 16:58, Niall Douglas via Boost a Ã©crit :
> 4. Given where Vicente appears to be heading next with expected<T, E1,
> E2, ...> it may be wise to make the static_checked_* varieties use
> std::variant<...> for storage when being compiled on C++ 17.
I'm not heading nothing. All my comments about expected<T, E1, E2,
...>where if we had in the hope you defined outcome variadic ;-)
We can have C++14 (or even C++11) version of std::variant. Just someone
needs to port it.
It would be even better if we had also a never-empty variant.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk