Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic returntype?

On 26 May 2015 at 14:07, Peter Dimov wrote:

I also disagree with the implicit expectation that a programming style based on expected will take the world by storm. It won't. Exceptions are much more convenient and make for clearer code. C++ programmers are not Haskell programmers and don't want to be; they don't use monads and do-statements. There is no need.

Get some experience programming in Rust and come back to me. I think you'll realise that monadic programming is going to become huge in C++ 11/14 in the near future in those use case scenarios where it is far better than all other idioms. We just need a decent not-Haskell monad implementation that doesn't get in the way of C++ programming. But for sure, this is a personal opinion, and yours is just is valid as mine right now until we see where the code trends to. BTW for reference the Rust Result<> monad *does* get in the way. I think we can do a lot better in C++, something more natural to program with and use. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/