Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-30 19:33:31

2018-01-30 18:56 GMT+01:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:07 PM, charleyb123 . via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome (v2) library begins
> Fri-19-Jan
> > and continues until Sun-28-Jan, 2018.
> My sincerest apologies, I am aware that the review period has ended.
> However, given the absence of dissenting voices I find it necessary to
> enter my comments into the public record.
> I will keep this short, so I will state unequivocally:
> Outcome should be REJECTED
> My reasons are as follows:
> 1. The library is not available to C++11 users. I understand that
> technically this is not against "the rules" but my rationale is as
> follows:
> a. Outcome provides fundamental vocabulary types. Boost has
> traditionally been
> the library collection to provide up and coming C++ features.
> For example boost::variant is
> usable in C++11 while std::variant is not
> b. Nothing in the implementation of Outcome should require C++14.
> As an example, Peter
> wrote a remarkably good version of expected and result using
> only C++11 and his
> "better variant" class (which also only requires C++11).
> Unfortunately he never published
> this work. I would prefer it over this Outcome.

A valid point. What is the reason for Boost.Outcome requiring C++14? If it
is the `constexpr` guarantees, could the `constexpr` be just dropped for
non-C++14 compilers?


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