Can you explain why this is confusing to you?
You missed the point. I'm not questioning what is the difference between Boost.Outcome and Expected (a.k.a. missing the point). I'm questioning why you use vocabulary such as...
He is implementing "hi". We implement "hello". We define the difference between "hi" and "hello" as...
If I was to choose any confusing term /on purpose/, the best term I'd come up with is the term you have chosen. There is no worse term to choose in the paragraph you wrote. That's my point.
You define "hi" and "hello" as different terms when they mean the same thing.
I think you're reading more into this than most other people do. Let me do some substitution: "Outcome’s default is to not provide value-or-error objects. It provides $TOKEN objects. We define the difference as being “having programmable actions in response to no-value observation other than throwing a hard coded logic error type exception”." Here we define $TOKEN as an object having programmable actions ... etc etc What I'm trying to do here is explain how these ValueOrError Concept matching objects are philosophically different in design to the proposed WG21 objects. We model success-vs-failure. They model value-vs-error. That has implications throughout the whole design of Outcome, which the tutorial hopefully covers. The reason we cover it there after the hand holding parts on result and outcome is because it is intended to "set the scene" for the remainder of that section, and ultimately, the rest of the tutorial.
Worst thing is, you don't need to define the difference between these two terms (value-or-error and success-or-failure) as these terms are not used in the rest of the page. Just erase the "Outcome’s default is to not provide value-or-error objects. It provides success-or-failure objects" sentence and the paragraph becomes perfect.
Would others agree? The page is https://ned14.github.io/outcome/tutorial/default-actions/ Even better is if somebody who isn't me refactored the page via a pull request to develop branch with improved wording. I can't see the problem you raise, you see. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/