Re: [boost] [outcome] To variant, or not to variant?

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] To variant, or not to variant?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-01 17:24:08

Le 01/06/2017 à 16:23, Robert Ramey via Boost a écrit :
> On 6/1/17 12:22 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
>> A valid observation. In a way `expected` and `outcome` (both from
>> Boost.Outcome) have different goals in mind. `expected` might in fact 
>> cover
>> your case. They could be two libraries. The reason they come together is
>> that they share 95% of the same implementation. 
>
> I haven't investigated too deeply into the code so of course I didn't 
> know that.  I would have "expected" that outcome, expected, et.al 
> would be derived from variant which would be the shared code.  Also 
> all the questions about narrow/wide interface, no empty guarantees, 
> etc. would be resolved (for better or worse) in the variant library so 
> the design, review, maintenance, etc. of outcome, expected et al. 
> would be confined to the particular aspects of these components - thus 
> being a more economic application of limited brain surface area.  Code 
> size would be smaller as well.
The problem is that we don't have a never-empty variant in Boost (we 
have Boost.Variant, but it uses double buffer IIRC).
Vicente