Re: [boost] [outcome] How to write a review considering the broad scope

On 5/26/17 15:49, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

...

...

...

That way everybody gets the Outcome they want. I will of course typedef outcome<T> and result<T> to whatever the consensus recommendation is from here, but say if Peter really wants the default constructor to make a singular empty state, he gets that. If I want a totally unavailable default constructor, I get that. And so on.

This will clarify my review. If after all the discussion you find that this is the way to go, clearly I'll not support you.

I think what Niall is saying here is that In the public API, you will get `expected`, `outcome<T>` and `result<T>`, but he will provide a "secret API" that normal programmers will never know about, but people like me and you, who have participated in all these discussions, and learned about it, may of curiosity quite easily build a new type of `expected` and experiment with it, and have useful feedback to LWG about practical consequences of different design decisions.

Niall, did I got your idea correctly?

Exactly correct.

I am currently preparing a "high level summary" of Outcome after all the changes I've agreed to, to help refine and focus further discussion of whether to accept or reject the library.

Niall

+1 ... Thank you Niall! -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com