On 02.02.2017 00:19, Niall Douglas wrote:
I overall liked the code examples, they worked much better for me than the previous ones.
Great. They're surprisingly hard to get right without annoying people.
I appreciate that this can be a very difficult task. It's a fine line between obscuring the library functionality with clutter and hiding important details.
However I do think the name "Tutorial" is a bit of a misnomer, and the parts A, B and C should be renamed to "Background", "Rationale" and "Introduction" respectively (or something similar).
Hence Part A really does need to be a tutorial of some form.
I just react to the word tutorial. For me, any tutorial in the Outcome documentation should be strictly regarding Outcome, not something else. I have no objections with part A having the _form_ of a tutorial though.
Agreed. I intentionally left them out for the peer review because if I include them then they form part of the review, but you can expect string_view and gsl::span<> overloads to turn up if Outcome is accepted into Boost.
Excellent.
Again if I did that then monads would form part of any review. So if a review ever comes, my response will be "the names are just a collection of ASCII bytes".
Fair enough. I know it's been a touchy subject. Cheers - Asbjørn