2 Apr
2019
2 Apr
'19
1:18 p.m.
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 4/2/19 3:55 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Michael Caisse wrote:
Note: The repository contains an expected implementation also; however, that is not being considered in this review.
To be clear, I do intend to finish `expected` and provide it as part of the library.
Will it be reviewed separately?
No. If you don't like it, now is the time to reject.
Also, IMHO, it's better to have libraries more focused and fine grained. Why not have `expected` as a separate library?
expected