Re: [boost] [outcome] To variant, or not to variant?

On 6/1/17 11:30 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

Robert Ramey wrote:

...

or

template<class T> struct outcome : public std::variant { // some special member functions outcome(const std::error_code & e){...} // construct as error outcome(const T & t){...} // construct legitimate result };

Something like this?

https://github.com/pdimov/variant2/blob/develop/include/boost/variant2/resul...

Probably I suppose ....

https://godbolt.org/g/EFGkCj

But this isn't really my point. The point I'm trying to make is that all the design disputes are also found in variant. It would seem to me that we're repeating all the same arguments ... with pretty much similar results. If the problem is that variant (std, boost, ...) is "broken" or not suitable for that reason it would seem to me that THAT problem would need to be addressed. Were that the case, then all the issues with outcome, optional, result, expected would disappear. Maybe I'm over simplifying here, so feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong. In any case, I would think that if a consensus can't be agreed upon after all this effort, maybe we should step back and except as a fact that "concensus cannot be reached". So we'll permit variant implementations of variant either with policy or simpler yet, just a separate implementation. Of course these separate implementations would also share a common base class so we get nested russian dolls. But at least we don't get so much repetition. Robert Ramey