Here is my review see the answers below. ________________________________________ From: Boost [boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] on behalf of charleyb123 . via Boost [boost@lists.boost.org] Sent: 18 January 2018 22:07 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: charleyb123 . Subject: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018) Hi, Everyone, The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome (v2) library begins Fri-19-Jan and continues until Sun-28-Jan, 2018. YOUR REVIEW --------------------- Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list (preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: - What is your evaluation of the design? I have only looked at a limited part of the design, outcome::outcome as it is relevant to the use case which is of interest to me. The part I have looked at seems fine to me. - What is your evaluation of the implementation? The implementation of the ideas appears to be consistent. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? The documentation made available is not consistent with the Boost implementation. e.g. macro names (BOOST_OUTCOME_TRY vs OUTCOME_TRY). I beleive other people have raised this. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? The library is very useful for the use case I have in mind, a Boost library which makes a small use of exceptions to cope with a small number of difficult cases. - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? I have run some of the examples in src/snippets and adapted them into my own examples. I have run these with Clang 4.0 and libc++ with C++14 and Boost 1.66.0. Once I had located the header and namespace this has not been a problem. I am running on Ubuntu Linux. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Not as much as I would have liked, hence the fact I have not looked at everything. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? I have worked on functional codes for a number of years and contributed to several recent reviews. And most importantly: - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? YES subject to sorting out the documentation, which other people have already mentioned. Best wishes John Fletcher