Paul wrote:
these are all *outcomes* - of varying types of varying and unspecified Thingy.
Niall wrote:
I like Boost.Outcome and boost::outcome::basic_outcome<Policy>. Do these make sense however: outcome<T>: Can be empty/T/error_code/exception_ptr. result<T>: Can be empty/T/error_code. option<T>: Can be empty/T.
Isn't "Outcome" no less generic and unspecific as "Result"? All of Boost.Monad, Boost.Outcome, or Boost.Result, seem like terrible names to me. We already name specific result types for the kind of result they are (I'm glad boost::optional is not boost::result). Why not name monad types for the specific kind of monad they are? Unless this "Monad" library isn't about offering a concrete type called "boost::monad" but instead is just a library to enable someone write their own monad types. Glen -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/afio-Formal-review-of-Boost-AFIO-tp467911... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.