Re: [boost] [outcome v2] Proposed second review dates?

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome v2] Proposed second review dates?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-10 16:26:55

>> Is that you voting in favour of January?
> 
> I'm not sure I have a horse in this race, is boost::expected part of Outcome?

It can be if reviewers wish it. See
https://ned14.github.io/outcome/faq/#how-far-away-from-the-proposed-std-expected-t-e-is-outcome-s-checked-t-e.
There is an implementation in the test suite.

You may remember that the v1 Outcome review didn't like Expected much
either. The consensus at that time wanted something different which I
believe is the v2 I am proposing.

I am in similar boat to you Vinnie. I hope to submit AFIO as the File
I/O TS next year. Every single API uses outcome::result, and in TS form
will need to be std::expected instead. You'll note v2 Outcome has been
carefully designed to allow that to work, so Boost gets its desired
"alt-Expected" whilst library code like AFIO isn't impacted.

If Outcome v2 is accepted, I already foresee legions of complaining
users about the differences. But I hate to be blunt, I think Boost is
right and WG21 is wrong. We thought about it much more deeply last May
than WG21 whose deep discussion time is limited, and I think it really
shows.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/