Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Review of Variant2 started today : April 1 - April 10
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-03 18:03:54
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > For those reasons, it makes most sense to develop `variant` and
> > `expected` in parallel, as parts of the same library.
> Sorry, I don't see why the two components need to be implemented in the
> same library and not use one another like a normal user would.
It's not clear what you're arguing for, or against.
In my opinion, it's better to develop these two specific components in the
same library, both from physical design and logical point of view. So that's
what I've been doing, and your not seeing why that should be doesn't change
So if you're arguing that I should do something else, I don't agree.
If, on the other hand, you're arguing that `expected<T, E...>` should not
get into Boost without a review, that's a legitimate position and if other
reviewers feel the same way, and the review verdict states that as an
acceptance condition, I will respect that decision, remove `expected` from
Variant2 and never add it back.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk