Subject: Re: [boost] [review] outcome
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-27 01:22:53
Thanks VinÃcius for the review. I had actually been thinking, given your
nitpicks on the documentation, that you didn't get the premise behind
the library design at all. Looks like I got that totally wrong. Sorry
for not believing in you.
> I worked for more than one year under contract using the Rust programming
> language and Boost.Outcome is pretty much the error system we have in Rust
> (with some C++-ification and an experienced C++ unique programmer
> "intuition" to also cover exceptions... and w/o monad ops, of course).
For the purposes of proper disclosure, I should say that both VinÃcius
and I worked for the same startup under contract for much of that same
year in Rust, and I think it safe to say that we both took away a
similar opinion on not just Rust, but many other things. Outcome's
design is indeed strongly influenced by my time there.
With regard to the review's feedback, I should emphasise that the
monadic operations currently proposed to WG21 work with anything
matching the ValueOrError Concept, which includes both Expected and
Outcome. So when/if those land, one would be good to go with Outcome.
That is likely 2023 though, at the earliest.
-- 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