- Boost - lists.boost.org

[outcome] Review of Outcome
by Peter Dimov 30 May '17

30 May '17

What follows is my review of the Outcome library. I. DESIGN --------- The general idea of an error handling framework is sound, extremely appealing, and I found it well explained in the documentation. I like the concept very much and agree with many of the design decisions taken throughout. Specifically, constraining the error type to be the fixed std::error_code (or equivalent) and providing a wide accessor interface. I don't think that option<T> should have been included at all. It duplicates optional<T> and has no good reason to exist other than to showcase that the underlying policy-based implementation can produce it. I don't consider expected<T, E> a particularly needed part of the library; the focus should be on result<T> and outcome<T>, the two classes that represent the error handling philosophy on which the library is built. As already stated, I consider the interface of result<T> and outcome<T> a bit too cluttered. Not everyone shares my design preferences for minimal but complete interfaces, so there's legitimate argument to be had over whether, for instance, operator*, operator-> or value_or ought to be included, but the needless duplication between get() and value() is, well, needless. For an initial submission, it's better to err on the side of too little, rather than too much, because it's easy to add later, hard to remove. The empty state has been a source of controversy, and with reason. My initial stance was that it simply needs to go. This however presents a legitimate design question as to what the behavior of the default constructor ought to be. After seeing the suggestions of leaving the object uninitialized there, I now see the empty state as a significantly lesser evil. Having an empty state without the default constructor putting the object into it however is pointless. I do not agree with the direction things have taken of providing a multitude of result classes instead of a single one. Components that are intended to be used in interfaces should provide one, carefully designed option, which encourages what the designer deems best practices. The idea here, assuming that we shoot for standard acceptance at some point, is to provide std::result<T> and have APIs return it, not provide a bag of options and let everyone pick its own thing. (They already do that today and we're not better for it.) I do not agree with making value() unchecked by default. As I explained, one expression of the error handling philosophy behind the library is the following snippet: auto r = function().value(); where function() is noexcept and returns result<T>, whereas the place where the above line appears is a higher level component that signals errors not via error_code, but via exceptions. This one-liner provides the transition in an elegant way; losing it obscures the vision behind the library. Instead of using std::error_code, the library provides its own error_code_extended, complete with an interesting and very useful ring buffer logging mechanism that stores additional information along with the standard code/category values. Specifically, it returns error_code_extended from result<T>::error(). I would separate things a bit further here, attaching the additional information not to a separate error_code_extended class, but to result<> itself. That is, result<>::error() would return std::error_code, and I'd provide a separate accessor, result<>::error_info(), say, that would return the ring buffer entry associated with this result<>. This for me provides a cleaner separation between the basic result<> functionality, and the extended one, although this is a matter of taste. I would also support chaining result<>s by storing the index of the parent ring buffer entry in the current ring buffer entry. This is a straightforward and very useful extension. Instead of providing a macro BOOST_OUTCOME_CATCH_EXCEPTION_TO_RESULT, I would provide result<T>::set_error_from_exception(std::exception const& e); and outcome<T>::set_error_from_exception(std::exception const& e, std::exception_ptr const & p); that would do more or less what the macro does, except the fallback in the second case would be to store p instead of (EINVAL, e.what()). I'd also use make_error_result and make_value_result instead of make_errored_result and make_valued_result, as the former seem more grammatically correct. II. IMPLEMENTATION ------------------ The implementation, from a cursory look, appears of high quality, which is not surprising given that it was in use for two years. The preprocessed header is not easy to review, but the non-preprocessed form is available and amenable to study. Simple examples using outcome<T> compile and work well, although under VS2017 Clang/C2 windows.h is included, which is unfortunate but fixable. The library does not provide a test/Jamfile, which means that as submitted it will not integrate into Boost's testing infrastructure. Given that a Jamfile that performs the equivalent of withmsvc.bat is trivial to write: import testing ; project : requirements <include>../include/boost/outcome/v1.0 ; run unittests.cpp ; the omission is inexplicable. (Further integration into the Boost test matrix would ideally entail splitting unittests.cpp into separate .cpp tests so that success/failure can be tracked independently.) With the above Jamfile, trying to test the library with Cygwin gcc fails with: D:\tmp2\boost-master\libs\outcome\test>b2 toolset=gcc-cxx14 [...] gcc.compile.c++ ..\..\..\bin.v2\libs\outcome\test\unittests.test\gcc-cxx14-6.3.0\debug\unittests.o In file included from ../include/boost/outcome/outcome.hpp:26:0, from unittests.cpp:34: ../include/boost/outcome/outcome_v1.0.hpp:1446:22: fatal error: execinfo.h: No such file or directory #include <execinfo.h> ^ compilation terminated. I realize that Cygwin is not a supported platform, but this is what I have here and this is what I test with, so I figured I'll give it a try. Trying to test with VS 2017 fails with: D:\tmp2\boost-master\libs\outcome\test>b2 toolset=msvc-14.1 [...] compile-c-c++ ..\..\..\bin.v2\libs\outcome\test\unittests.test\msvc-14.1\debug\threading-multi\unittests.obj unittests.cpp unittests.cpp(780): error C3245: 'boost::outcome::_1_0_std_std_9274c0d4::basic_monad<boost::outcome::_1_0_std_std_9274c0d4::policy::monad_policy<udt>>::is_constructible': use of a variable template requires template argument list d:\tmp2\boost-master\libs\outcome\include\boost\outcome\outcome_v1.0.hpp(4271): note: see declaration of 'boost::outcome::_1_0_std_std_9274c0d4::basic_monad<boost::outcome::_1_0_std_std_9274c0d4::policy::monad_policy<udt>>::is_constructible' unittests.cpp(780): fatal error C1903: unable to recover from previous error(s); stopping compilation I get the same failure with /std:c++latest. Testing with the msvc-14.0 toolset works. The library as submitted contains both a preprocessed, fully self-contained, single header named outcome_v1_0.hpp, which is used by default, and a traditional non-preprocessed form that can be chosen with a macro. For the non-preprocessed form to be functional, a git submodule is incorporated by reference: [submodule "include/boost/outcome/boost-lite"] path = include/boost/outcome/boost-lite url = https://github.com/ned14/boost-lite.git branch = master fetchRecurseSubmodules = true ignore = untracked which in turn incorporates two more submodules: [submodule "include/gsl-lite"] path = include/gsl-lite url = https://github.com/martinmoene/gsl-lite.git branch = master fetchRecurseSubmodules = true ignore = untracked [submodule "pcpp"] path = pcpp url = https://github.com/ned14/pcpp.git branch = master fetchRecurseSubmodules = true ignore = untracked The first of these is not by the library author, and the second is a derived work. It is not possible for a Boost release, say, boost_1_65_0.zip, to incorporate git submodules by reference, so there remains a question of what, exactly, is being submitted for inclusion. My attempts to clarify this with the author have proven unsuccessful. I consider this a critical defect of the submission. It is simply not possible for a reviewer to give an opinion whether the submission ought to be included into Boost releases without it being known what, specifically, is being proposed to be included. There is no problem with the library containing implementation details under its directory, but we need to know what these details are. What the library actually needs as dependencies from boost-lite is not much and it's perfectly possible to extract the necessary parts and prepare a self-contained submission. This should have been done prior to the review. The files in the library contain the following: ``` Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License in the accompanying file Licence.txt or at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file Licence.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) ``` This intends to dual license the library, but as written, it doesn't. What it does is apply the terms of BOTH licenses to distribution and use. This is also a critical defect. If the library is included in a Boost release, it should make it perfectly clear that it's licensed under the Boost license, and not under the intersection of Boost and Apache 2.0. There are several ways to do it, one is to clarify the above to specifically say "ASL2 or BSL, at your option" in the appropriate legalese, another is to license the Boost-included Outcome under BSL and the standalone Outcome under whatever. My recommendation would be to just license the lot under BSL and be done with it. Dual licensing creates unnecessary legal complications and may, from a legal point of view, be more burdensome than just using the BSL. Contributors need to be aware that they are licensing their patches under both licenses, it might not be very clear whether they have been aware, and so on. At times, the library duplicates certain functionality present elsewhere in Boost. I do not consider this a defect. It's a legitimate design decision to avoid intra-Boost dependencies, although the author needs to be aware of the downsides - using Boost components is basically taking advantage of free work instead of having to maintain everything oneself. III. DOCUMENTATION ------------------ I found the documentation perfectly adequate and was able to get a very good outline of how the classes were designed, how they were intended to be used, and what problem they intend to solve. It focuses a bit too much on expected<T, E>, which is not in itself a bad thing but is, for me, not exactly what the library is about. Fixing E to std::error_code is a fundamental (and correct) design decision from which these classes derive much of their utility. The Doxygen-generated reference will not win any awards, but it does the job. It however contains too many implementation details that would ideally either not be there at all, or tucked away in their own separate section. The monadic content is also a bit too high for my taste, and I would prefer if a user of result<> and outcome<> does not encounter the word monad at all. IV. VERDICT ----------- Should Outcome be accepted? In short, eventually. This, at present, is a NO. Ideally, what I would like to see is the library resubmitted in a conventional form, consisting of exactly the files that are intended to go into the libs/outcome directory in boost_1_65_0.zip, licensed under the BSL, only containing the files necessary for the non-preprocessed version of the code to compile and work. In addition, the test/ subdirectory would contain a Jamfile that is ready to integrate into the Boost test matrix.

4 14

[build] conditional run of unit-tests?
by Oliver Kowalke 30 May '17

30 May '17

In the unit tests I want conditionally run some unit-tests - depending on property <target-os>- On Windows systems the unit-test should apply/build with property <context- impl>winfib and on POSIX (non-Windows) <context-impl>ucontext. The Jamfile below doesn't work (Windows version build on POSIX) - xould I get a hint how to fix it (couldn't find a reference of rule 'run'). Oliver [ run test_callcc.cpp : : : <context-impl>fcontext [ requires cxx11_auto_declarations cxx11_constexpr cxx11_defaulted_functions cxx11_final cxx11_hdr_thread cxx11_hdr_tuple cxx11_lambdas cxx11_noexcept cxx11_nullptr cxx11_rvalue_references cxx11_template_aliases cxx11_thread_local cxx11_variadic_templates ] : test_callcc_fcontext ] [ run test_callcc.cpp : : : <context-impl>ucontext [ requires cxx11_auto_declarations cxx11_constexpr cxx11_defaulted_functions cxx11_final cxx11_hdr_thread cxx11_hdr_tuple cxx11_lambdas cxx11_noexcept cxx11_nullptr cxx11_rvalue_references cxx11_template_aliases cxx11_thread_local cxx11_variadic_templates ] : test_callcc_ucontext ] [ run test_callcc.cpp : : : <context-impl>winfib [ requires cxx11_auto_declarations cxx11_constexpr cxx11_defaulted_functions cxx11_final cxx11_hdr_thread cxx11_hdr_tuple cxx11_lambdas cxx11_noexcept cxx11_nullptr cxx11_rvalue_references cxx11_template_aliases cxx11_thread_local cxx11_variadic_templates ] : test_callcc_winfib : <target-os>windows ] ;

2 2

Re: [boost] [outcome] Possible extensions/changes to std::experimental::expected
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 30 May '17

30 May '17

Hi, I believe that this private mail I sent to Niall could concern the Boost community and the Outcome review. While the post concerns the proposed std::experimental::expected, this is applicable as well to Outcome. I've added a more points at the end and some additional information about possible open points for std expected. Le 24/05/2017 à 01:04, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit : > > Hi, > > > After better understanding of the goals of Boost.Outcome I would like > to share two possible extension of std::experimental::expected > > > 1. Implicit conversion when the errors are convertible and the type is > the same. > > I believe this is a missing constructor. > > EXPLICIT expected<T, E>::expected(expected<T, G>); // E is > convertible from G > > I see that the other constructor is also useful > > EXPLICIT expected<T, E>::expected(expected<U, E>); // T is > convertible from U > > and so > > EXPLICIT expected<T, E>::expected(expected<U, G>); // T is > convertible from U and E is convertible from G > > We could as well have an adapt function that transforms expected error explicitly to do error propagation adapt : (E->G) x expected<T,E> -> expected<T,G> (E->G) stands for a function that takes an E and return a G. > 2. variadic expected<Y, E1, ..., En> > > I suggested this already in revision 2 of the Expected standard proposal. > > expected<Y, E1, ..., En> should be something like variant<Y, E1, ..., > En> but with some syntactic sugar. > > > expected<T, E1, ...., En> could be EXPLICIT convertible from > expected<T, G1, ...., Gm> as far as for all Gj we find a unique Ek > that is convertible to. > We can refine the subsumption relation this could take too long to the compiler (as the previous relation has quadratic complexity as Andrzej reported to me). > > I believe this will cover exactly what outcome covers and in addition > it will let open the error types used by the user. > > It acts as a exception specification, which we have abandoned in C++11. > > expected<T, E1, ...., En> f(); > > T f() throw (E1, ...., En); > > > We can consider that this is bad, as we have abandoned it. > > Anyway, I think that expected<T, E1, ...., En> is a good > generalization of the proposed outcome<T> where E1 could be none_t, E2 > could be error_code and E3 is exception_ptr. > > At the end users could use variant<E, E1, ..., En> are return code, so maybe we could to make their life easier. > > In this way we could have > > template <class T> > > using option = expected<T, nullopt_t>; > > Note that this is different to std::optional as the default is T not > nullopt_t :( > I'm not proposing it. Just to say that this could be a possibility for option. > > template <class T> > > using result = expected<T, error_code_extended>; // and possibly none. > > template <class T> > > using outcome = expected<T, none_t, error_code_extended, exception_ptr>; > > > I believe we would need the syntactic sugar as expected<T, > variant<E1,... En>> should have a lot of user code noise. > In addition it will be less efficient than variant<T, E1,... En>. > > E.g. expected<T, variant<E1,... En>> should be convertible from > unexpected_type<G> as soon a one of the Ek is convertible from G. > > I believe variant<E1,... En> is not convertible from variant<G1,... > Gm> under the conditions described above, but maybe this should be the > case. > Andrzej told to me that this is already the case for optional<T>, but I've not found yet on which paper this was added? > > Of course, the never empty warranties could be supported only if the > types Ek allow it and we need to change the standard to ensure it for > exception_ptr. > > > I will not have time to implement a POC for 2, but I believe I could > do it for 1 before Toronto. Anyway I believe it will be worth > discussing these 2 extensions. > > > Best, > > Vicente > > > P.S. EXPLICIT above has the sense given in the standard. > 3. uninitialized default constructed expected<T,E> I know this could be conflictual, but there are a some advantages to doing it. We don't spend time initializing with something we will assign later. This state corresponds to the moved-from state. Initializing it by default to T() is not better initializing to E(). Is expected<Date, error_code> default constructible even if Date is not? Currently it is not the case. There are of course liabilities. We have now the possibility for uninitialized variables, but static analysis tools will help here. 4. About comparisons Outcome doesn't implement comparisons between Outcomes. He pretend that we don't need them. In addition the mix of comparisons and implicit conversion give us some surprising cases as described in Andrzej blog. [1] A gotcha with Optional - https://akrzemi1.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/a-gotcha-with-optional We have that std::future is not comparable (as exception_ptr is not comparable). Instead of comparison we could specialize std::less<> if we want to use them in ordered containers. What others think? 5. About implicit conversion from T The implicit conversion from T to expected<T,E> is a consequence of wanting that expected<T,E> should behave like a T. But this is not right. A expected<T,E> is not a T. We have in some way that expected<T,E> is explicitly constructible from E bu the use of make_unexpected(e). If we had only and explicit constructor from T the code will be much more uniform. Either you build it with a modified make_expected or with make_unexpected. In my opinion the implicit conversion from T to expected<T> is a mistake. 5. About the exception to throw std::experimental::expected throw bad_expected_access<E>. I adopted the design of optional and bad_optional_access We could have as well a bad_expected_access_base class as Outcome has. My question is why don't throw directly E? Some are requesting a way to get a specific exception from E, but either there is one exception that works for all and we can set it using some kind of trait or we need to add a trait parameter to expected to the the mapping :( Do we really want this to be configurable? 6. Implicit conversion from E outcome::expected<T,E> outcome::expected<T,E> is implicitly convertible from E when there is no risk of ambiguity. std::expected<T,E> is implicitly convertible from unexpected<E>. What people thing we should have? In Boost? in the standard? Vicente

5 21

[build] [config] check_target_builds and feature.subfeature composition
by Edward Diener 30 May '17

30 May '17

The Boost library config uses the check_target_builds rule to provide build time feature testing. Other Boost libraries use config checks in their own build and test jamfiles. I have found that this works reliably when a particular toolset is used in a normal manner. However when using the feature.subfeature and feature.compose rules to extend the toolset-version designation with a subfeature, such that the toolset designation now becomes toolset-version-subfeature, the use of the check_target_builds rule does not work as expected. In particular the individual check_target_builds rule results are put into a subdirectory based on the toolset-version and not based on the toolset-version-subfeature when toolset subfeature composition is used. I also suspect that the cached value reflects setup. This causes wrong results in tests where the toolset designation uses subfeatures, and a library's jamfile is using config and/or predef checks. As an example My toolset designation looks like: using gcc : 6.3 : some_path ; feature.subfeature toolset gcc : cxxstd : c03 c11 c14 c17 : optional composite propagated ; feature.compose <toolset-gcc:cxxstd>c03 : <cxxflags>-std=c++03 ; feature.compose <toolset-gcc:cxxstd>c11 : <cxxflags>-std=c++11 ; feature.compose <toolset-gcc:cxxstd>c14 : <cxxflags>-std=c++14 ; feature.compose <toolset-gcc:cxxstd>c17 : <cxxflags>-std=c++1z ; A library's test looks like: import ../../config/checks/config : requires ; run some_test.cpp : : : [ requires cxx11_hdr_forward_list ] ; If I run some some_test with toolset=gcc-6.3-c03, the config result for checking if forward list is supported is put into a subdirectory reflecting the toolset-version while the test result will be put into a subdirectory reflecting the toolset-version-subfeature. Subsequently if I run some_test with toolset=gcc-6.3-c11 the config result is taken from the subdirectory reflect the toolset-version even though whether the forward list is supported or not depends very much on the subfeature I am designating as part of the toolset. This naturally causes incorrect results for the test. Is this a known problem ? Is it a problem with Boost Build or is it a problem with how config uses the check_target_builds rule ? I have run into this problem extensively in my testing once I started to use the feature.subfeature ability of Boost Build.

5 9

[outcome] Review of Outcome
by Emil Dotchevski 29 May '17

29 May '17

I. Design There is a need in C++ for dealing with failures without using exceptions. This is not so much driven by actual inefficiencies (as opposed to perceived inefficiencies) of exception handling, but by the fact that not all C++ code in existence is exception-safe, and the fact that some C++ programmers work in environments where exception handling is disabled, as ill-advised such a decision may be. In my opinion the library should drop option<T> and result<T> altogether and should be reduced to outcome<T> only, which can be empty, or hold a T, or hold an exception (but not error code, see below.) This is critical for a library that aims to provide a _common_ general mechanism for dealing with failures in interfaces; providing a rich set of alternatives works against that goal. (It seems desirable to get rid of the empty state too but the discussions during the review period show that this might cause more problems than it solves.) Secondly, it is not a good idea to use error codes or any other value as means to dispatch on different kinds of failures because semantically such dispatch should be static: there is some _code_ which detects the error, and there is some other _code_ that needs to bind it and handle it. This is one reason why in C++ catch dispatches by the static type of the exception objects, not by some exception.what() value. Further, using static types to communicate different kinds of failures allows users to recognize and handle an entire class of errors by means of implicit type conversions, by organizing error types in a hierarchy. For example: struct io_error: virtual std::runtime_error { }; struct read_error: virtual io_error { }; struct write_error: virtual io_error { }; struct file_error: virtual io_error { }; struct file_read_error: virtual file_error, virtual read_error { }; struct parse_error: virtual std::runtime_error { }; struct syntax_error: virtual parse_error { }; With this hierarchy, we can use read_error to handle any kind of read errors (not just file-related), file_error to handle any kind of file failures (read or write), etc. That said, outcome<T> should also be able to transport values, however their purpose should not be to tell _what_ went wrong, but to provide additional information. It must be stressed that such additional information should be decoupled from the classification of the error. For example: outcome<parsed_data> parse_file( char const * file_name ); The above function reads a file and returns some parsed_data -or- stores an exception object in the outcome. What are the possible failures? It may be a file_read_error, but also types unrelated to I/O like std::bad_alloc or syntax_error. Regardless of the type of the failure, the outcome object should be able to transport the file name because it is relevant no matter _what_ went wrong. Incidentally, the need to transport contextual information independently of the error classification exists when throwing exceptions as well, so if outcome<T> can hold exception objects (and allow users to dispatch on their static type, like catch does), the exception objects themselves can take care of holding any additional information, for example by using Boost Exception. II. Implementation In general the library should not shy away from integrating with common Boost facilities in an effort to appeal to people who hate Boost. A Boost library should primarily target Boost users and address their concerns. This includes the testing framework as well as boost/config.hpp where applicable (it is okay to not always include boost/config.hpp, but it should be included to get things like BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS and other configuration macros.) The library should use BOOST_ASSERT, though I don't see a problem with not #including boost/assert.hpp if BOOST_ASSERT is already defined (by the user). The library should use BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION to throw. Like in the case of BOOST_ASSERT, it's fine to not #include boost/throw_exception.hpp if BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION is already defined. That said, avoiding coupling with individual Boost submodules is desirable in general. Also there is no problem with providing facilities to avoid all Boost coupling in order to support non-Boost users. III. Documentation The documentation makes broad claims about the inefficiency of exception handling which seem to be motivated by a desire to appeal to programmers who hold such beliefs. There is no need to make such generally untrue claims in order to justify the need for Outcome. Other than that the documentation does the job. IV. Verdict Should Outcome be accepted into Boost? NO This obviously applies only to the current state of the library.

3 4

[move] BOOST_RV_REF(TypeWithoutMoveEmulation) parameters
by Groke, Paul 29 May '17

29 May '17

Hi, I'd like to use BOOST_RV_REF, with both C++98 and C++11 compilers, for some sink-functions, with types that are not "move-enabled". I.e. types that the sink can "consume"/"move from" by other means (swapping, calling .release(), ...). Some of them I can - eventually - change to be fully move-enabled, others I can not (e.g. STL classes). I just assumed that this was possible by simply passing the argument with boost::move(arg). Apparently it's not though, because boost::move will return a plain T& for types without move emulation. For the time being I have defined my own helper function template "move_any" that will always return a rv<T>&. Is there such a function that I missed? And if not, would you think it'd make sense to provide one (I certainly think it would)? Regards, Paul Groke

3 5

[outcome] On the design and documentation
by Thomas Heller 28 May '17

28 May '17

Hi Niall (and also probably Vicente) I was following the discussion about expected/outcome/result very closely and I can absolutely see the usefulness of such a library (I explicitly discarded option here). I am not sure if this post should count as a review, mainly because I disagree with the fundamental design decisions (that includes expected as defined in D0323R2) and therefor would cast my vote as in "not ready yet", I hope I can convey my points below. First of all, I don't agree with the strong (conceptual) relationship between optional (be it boost:: or std::experimental) in such a way that expected is a generalization of it. From what I understand, the purpose of expected/outcome/ result is to be used as a mechanism to return the result of a function. As such it should also expose the semantics of it. Fortunately, we already have a (asynchronous) return object standardized (std::future). And this is my basic disagreement here: Why not model expected in the lines of future? With the main points being: - expected being movable only - expected<T,E>::value() should always return by value and invalidate this. - (I would really prefer the color .get though ;)) So the question to Vicente/Niall is: what is the motivation to make it "optional-ish"? Do we have use cases which make this design undesirable? By having these constraints, expected of course needs to have an uninitialized state. As such we'd have the three observers: valid(): true when has_value() || has_error(), false otherwise (for example default constructed, invalidated), has_value() and has_error(). Second, I think Niall raised a valid about outcome being a framework for interoperability (completely orthogonal to the first point). However, I totally miss this from the proposed library, most pressing are non intrusive mechanisms. For that purpose I postulate, that a mechanism to transform between different unexpected results, that is: various error codes etc. However, for that to work, one would of course need a properly defined concept, for example, as Vicente suggested "EitherValue", and a mechanism to coerce one error type into another, maybe through ADL, or traits specialization or whatever. With that in place, one could simply define the different EitherValue types, there is no need that everything needs to be in the form of "basic_XXX". For the library under review, this would be perfectly sufficient: template <typename T, typename E> class expected; template <typename T> using result = expected<T, extended_error_info>; template <typename T> using outcome = expected<T, variant<extended_error_info, exception_ptr>>; That is, given that we have either a value or unexpected, we can convert expected<T, E1> to expected<U, E2> if T is convertible to U and E1 "coercable" (with whichever mechanism) to E2. If we then have a generic mechanism to get from a (possibly user defined "E") to an exception, I completely miss the point of the outcome template. Furthermore, I believe that .value/.error should really have a narrow contract, that is that it is UB to call those functions if the respective types are not held (easy to catch this in a debug build...). Why? Probably just a micro optimization, but consider the canonical usage: auto r = some_function_returning_expected(...); if (r.has_value()) // Do something with the value else // An error occurred, PANIC In both branches, we know exactly what's in there ... so why check again when getting the state out? I don't get the "reinterpret_cast" argument. I am one of the persons that believe that UB is a necessary evil for some optimizations... All optimizations can then easily be put as implementation details and the generic expected<T, E> will probably suffice for most use cases, for everything else, we can implement special types which conform to our concepts and implement the error conversion mechanisms. This will most likely also work with different APIs/ABIs. Last but not least, I wanted to give some feedback on the proposed Boost.Outcome documentation. At the very least, I find it highly confusing. When I open its "landing page", I get no idea about the following: - What is the purpose of the library? - Why/when should I use it? - What should I look into next? >From the front page, it looks like a implementation of expected, but only talks about the outcome template, it is very hard to find the documentation for the other three types result, outcome and option. Yet, the documentation explicitly warns about it being unstable and suggests to use its refinements. Useful information is spread across the whole documentation, there is no easy way to find the requirements on T or E. The reference section is anything but complete and doesn't convey any useful information. I did not really look at the actual implementation of the proposed library. I cloned the git repository and had a quick glance, but to be honest, I got lost very early, I have no idea where to start looking first. Cheers, Thomas

6 15

[outcome] outcome without empty state?
by Andrzej Krzemienski 28 May '17

28 May '17

Niall, What do you think about the following alternate interface of outcome types? 1. Remove option<T> altogether. 2. result<T> (and outcome<T>) does not have a separate empty state. 3. A default-constructed result<T> is initialized as if `result<T>{error_code_extended{}}`. 4. Function r.empty() is implemented as `r.has_error() && !error()`. 5. Framework requires that type E in `expected<T, E>` is default-constructible, and its default-constructed value represents no error condition (already the case for exception_ptr, error_code). The rationale behind this is my assumption that `option<T>` is not as useful as the other types. (Or can you give an example to the contrary?) That there was no initial business need for an empty state, and the examples that illustrate its usefulness are just exploring how we can make use of it now that it is there. (Or am I wrong here?) I noticed a number of people report negative feedback about this empty state. Getting rid of it would take result<T> closer to "either T or reason for failure". What do you think? Regards, &rzej;

6 27

[review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
by charleyb123 . 28 May '17

28 May '17

Hi Everyone, The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome library starts today (Fri-19-May) and continues until Sun-28-May. Your participation is encouraged, as the proposed library is uncoupled and focused, and reviewers don't need to be domain experts to appreciate the potential usefulness of the library and to propose improvements. Everyone needs (and has suffered) error handling, and can compose an opinion on that topic. Outcome is a header-only C++14 library providing expressive and type-safe ultra-lightweight error handling, suitable for low-latency code bases. Key features: *- Makes using std::error_code from C++11's <system_error> more convenient and safe *- Provides high-quality implementation of proposed std::expected<T,E> (on C++20 standards track) *- Good focus on low-latency (with tests and benchmarks) *- Error-handling algorithmic composition with-or-without C++ exceptions enabled *- No dependencies (not even on Boost) This review is timely, as C++17 brings us std::optional<T>. The upcoming std::expected<T,E> (an implementation provided in Outcome) is a generalization of std::optional<T> that provides a <success|fail> value, where the unhappy result is a 'std::error_code' or an instance of "your-chosen-error-type". The library further provides 'outcome<T,error-code,exception-ptr>' for handling <success|error|exception> to safely wrap throwing APIs. Documentation: https://ned14.github.io/boost.outcome/index.html ACCU 2017 talk including design rationale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVofgKH-uu4 GitHub: https://github.com/ned14/boost.outcome Latest tarball: https://github.com/ned14/boost.outcome/releases/download/ boost_peer_review3/boost.outcome-v1.0-source-201705111650.tar.xz Note: Tarball might be easiest; but if you want to clone from GitHub directly, after the clone you should run the following command to get the source zip exactly: git submodule update --init --recursive Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list (preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And most importantly: - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you very much for your time and efforts. --charley

17 70

[review] Review of Outcome (ends Sun-28-May)
by charleyb123 . 27 May '17

27 May '17

Hi, Everyone, First a (very-)big "thank-you!" to all participating in the ongoing (and vigorous) debate and review for the Outcome library. The spirited discussion touches on tricky issues for composition and error handling (with and without C++ exceptions enabled), where the community is clearly searching for best convention and common ground. Thus far: (a)- some 300+ emails discussing Outcome (and more emails off-list) (b)- participation from: *- Andrzej Krzemienski *- D25fe0be *- Deniz Bahadir *- Emil Dotchevski *- Gavin Lambert *- Glen Fernandes *- Gottlob Frege (Tony) *- Hartmut Kaiser *- Ion Gaztanaga *- Jonathan Muller *- Niall Douglas *- Paul Bristow *- Pete Bartlett *- Peter Dimov *- Robert Ramey *- Thomas Heller *- Vicente J. Botet Escriba *- Vinnie Falco *- ...(apologies if I've missed anyone) (c)- Some points-of-discussion relate to: *- Outcome efficiency (copy/move) on today’s compilers *- Outcome speed/overhead (exceptions) *- Outcome purpose/motivation *- Outcome Tutorials, documentation *- Outcome “formal-empty-state”, default-initialization *- Outcome compiling, compiler support *- Outcome ABI, namespace usage, use of preprocessor *- Outcome alternative APIs *- std::expected proposal, possible changes (d)- Reviews to date (sent publicly to the list): *- Paul Bristow -- accept, conditional (Tue-23-May) *- Deniz Bahadir -- accept, unconditional (Wed-24-May) *- Thomas Heller -- (almost a review), ?reject, "not-ready-yet?" (Wed-24-May) (e)- Significant other discussion also contributes to evaluation of Outcome as a Boost library. However, I encourage further reviews to make clear any conclusions from these discussions that I might have missed. The review continues for several more days, ending Sun-28-May. Please consider posting a review to the boost mailing list, or privately to the Review Manager (to me). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And most importantly: - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Thank you very much for your time and efforts. --charley

8 16