Re: [boost] [outcome] comments on Regular ops

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] comments on Regular ops
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-23 06:32:37

On 23/01/2018 12:35, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> 2018-01-22 23:31 GMT+01:00 Gavin Lambert:
>> There is still benefit in providing operator==(EC) even if T does not
>> provide operator==, eg. for the construct:
[...]
> This could be handled by providing a dedicated heterogeneous comparison
> between `result<T, EC>` and `EC`. But my preference would be a dedicated
> function.

That already exists; my point was that the argument to conditionally 
remove operator== might apply to operator==(outcome<>) or operator==(T) 
but is not necessarily applicable to other operator== cases.