Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Change semantics on UB from peer review agreed semantics?
From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-14 07:05:55
> And my other question was, are we sure that anyone is using Outcome for
> this use case. If the answer approaches "no", that is, if nearly all users
> of Outcome use it only to design exception-free interfaces, it might be
> better to provide this functionality in a different library.
Isn't that what optional is for? If you don't want value-or-error
semantics but rather maybe-value semantics, then that's optional<>. Or
did I misunderstood you?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk