Boost Announcement :
Subject: [Boost-announce] [boost][review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: charleyb123 . (charleyb123_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-11 16:19:08
** HEADS UP, NEXT WEEK **
The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome library starts next week
(Fri-19-May to 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
Outcome is a header-only C++14 library providing expressive and type-safe
ultra-lightweight error handling, suitable for low-latency code bases.
*- Makes using std::error_code from C++11's <system_error> more convenient
*- 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
*- 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
The library further provides 'outcome<T,error-code,exception-ptr>' for
handling <success|error|exception> to safely wrap throwing APIs.
ACCU 2017 talk including design rationale:
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
NEXT WEEK (when the public review is started): 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
- 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:
Thank you very much for your time and efforts.
Boost-announce list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk