On 24-Aug-15 1:17 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
It will be easier to know the scope of the review and what is left for the near future. Is the monad part of the review?
I am happy to accept bug reports on monad<T>. But I don't think the AFIO review is reviewing monad<T>, nor do you need to.
I mean, if you like the design of boost::shared_future<T>, then by definition you like the design of monad<T>. I would have said monad<T> is therefore uncontroversial, as it's already in Boost.Thread and is very well understood (especially by you Vicente!).
Personally, I have concerns about the naming. E.g. if one reads http://bartoszmilewski.com/2011/01/09/monads-for-the-curious-programmer-part... one understands that monad is a fairly general concept, with several implementation in Haskell, and the "Monad" class has multiple implementations: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.8.1.0/docs/Control-Monad.html The monad<T> you are proposing seems related to Haskell 'Maybe', but not very much to anything else. I would suggest that a different name be used. It would certainly be unfortunately if a controversial name is necessary part of using an accepted library. - Volodya