Subject: Re: [boost] Reforming Boost.System and <system_error> round 2
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-16 19:07:40
> It's true that if we use Outcome, the "failed" bit is already there so
> we don't need to ask the error_code at all. But the topic here, brought
> up by Niall, is error_code and not Outcome. Presumably, being the author
> of Outcome, he wouldn't ask for something he knows he doesn't need. :-)
Actually for Outcome, what I wanted from Boost.System was constexpr
construction (got that) and removal of <string> (didn't get that).
Outcome is useful precisely as a means to not have this problem with
error_code. So the fix being discussed is not needed by Outcome. My
interest in it is purely due to code written using Outcome which works
with error codes.
There is a second purpose though. Given my failure to remove <string>, I
think it is now inevitable that I'll need to go implement a
<system_error2> or something like that. It'll fix the header-only use
problems and dragging in the STL allocator machinery. It'll also be more
reliable for semantic comparisons.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk