Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] success-or-failure objects
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-23 19:00:30
> Can you explain why this is confusing to you?
> You missed the point. I'm not questioning what is the difference between
> Boost.Outcome and Expected (a.k.a. missing the point). I'm questioning
> why you use vocabulary such as...
>>He is implementing "hi". We implement "hello". We define the difference
> between "hi" and "hello" as...
> If I was to choose any confusing term /on purpose/, the best term I'd
> come up with is the term you have chosen. There is no worse term to
> choose in the paragraph you wrote. That's my point.
> You define "hi" and "hello" as different terms when they mean the same
I think you're reading more into this than most other people do. Let me
do some substitution:
"Outcomeâs default is to not provide value-or-error objects. It provides
$TOKEN objects. We define the difference as being âhaving programmable
actions in response to no-value observation other than throwing a hard
coded logic error type exceptionâ."
Here we define $TOKEN as an object having programmable actions ... etc etc
What I'm trying to do here is explain how these ValueOrError Concept
matching objects are philosophically different in design to the proposed
WG21 objects. We model success-vs-failure. They model value-vs-error.
That has implications throughout the whole design of Outcome, which the
tutorial hopefully covers.
The reason we cover it there after the hand holding parts on result and
outcome is because it is intended to "set the scene" for the remainder
of that section, and ultimately, the rest of the tutorial.
> Worst thing is, you don't need to define the difference between these
> two terms (value-or-error and success-or-failure) as these terms are not
> used in the rest of the page. Just erase the "Outcomeâs default is to
> not provide value-or-error objects. It provides success-or-failure
> objects" sentence and the paragraph becomes perfect.
Would others agree? The page is
Even better is if somebody who isn't me refactored the page via a pull
request to develop branch with improved wording. I can't see the problem
you raise, you see.
-- 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