On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:07 PM, charleyb123 . via Boost
The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome (v2) library begins Fri-19-Jan and continues until Sun-28-Jan, 2018.
My sincerest apologies, I am aware that the review period has ended. However, given the absence of dissenting voices I find it necessary to enter my comments into the public record. I will keep this short, so I will state unequivocally: Outcome should be REJECTED My reasons are as follows: 1. The library is not available to C++11 users. I understand that technically this is not against "the rules" but my rationale is as follows: a. Outcome provides fundamental vocabulary types. Boost has traditionally been the library collection to provide up and coming C++ features. For example boost::variant is usable in C++11 while std::variant is not b. Nothing in the implementation of Outcome should require C++14. As an example, Peter wrote a remarkably good version of expected and result using only C++11 and his "better variant" class (which also only requires C++11). Unfortunately he never published this work. I would prefer it over this Outcome. c. As Beast is C++11 and relies heavily on error_code, I can't use it in Beast. 2. The source code is generated from another project with a different license. 3. The Boost policy gives library authors practically unlimited discretion to make any changes they want after their library has been accepted. I have seen endless public examples where the author quarrels with other developers. I am concerned that after acceptance, Outcome will generate significant conflict over the odd choices which the author will unquestionably make and implement (as evidence by the odd choices the author has made in the past). 4. This library is too complicated for what it does: policies are unnecessary. I recognize that some of these reasons may be considered outside the scope of the review process (for example, considering the qualities of the author in addition to the library). I think they are relevant. This review is late for a number of reasons. Among which: I was expecting a significant number of people to reject it. At the very least, the people who rejected the last submission. And I realize that my review will cause a significant amount of drama on its own, which I hoped to avoid, by the frank and somewhat confrontational nature of it. Regards