Boost logo

Boost :

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

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