Re: [review][LEAF] Review of LEAF

From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-31 23:56:35

On 31/05/2020 00:43, Emil Dotchevski via Boost-users wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:28 PM Sorin Fetche via Boost-users
> <boost-users_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost-users_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> Excellent as it allows bridging multiple error handling strategies and
>> usage patterns in an efficient way. I view it as a clear successor to
>> Boost.Exception and has very good interoperability with Boost.Outcome.
> 
> Thanks for highlighting this. Indeed, you can use outcome::result<>
> instead of leaf::result<>, and still use LEAF to handle errors; it does
> not have to replace any library already in use, it could be deployed
> surgically in a large code base, to get error objects transported in a
> tricky case or two.

I should add that those who use Experimental Outcome do so because
status_code can transport arbitrary payload in the result's E type. If
the payload is non-trivial, a common strategy is to store it in a
singleton, and pass a unique identifier to that item in the singleton in
the payload. This is not dissimilar to the technique which LEAF provides.

Niall