Boost logo

Boost :

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
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


ned Productions Limited Consulting

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