Re: [boost] [outcome] Ternary logic -- need an example

I am not entirely satisfied with this reply. I need this documented not because I do not know how to do it (well, this also), but because this way you commit to supporting this form of customization in subsequent releases.

Ah but I haven't, nor was I intending to. Earlier rounds of feedback from Reddit convinced me that customising basic_monad is a very niche enterprise. Very, very few users of Outcome will want to do that. Furthermore, a big aim of this review was to find out what other precooked varieties of basic_monad would be preferable so we can expand the family of precooked implementations. That would further reduce the need for anyone to dive into writing policy classes for basic_monad.

I am also not sure I belong to this 5%. I complained about the wide contracts, and your response was I should write my own customization.

That was *not* my response. My response was to go use expected if you want narrow contracts. Now, the way it looks like consensus opinion is going is that most reviewers want a really long template with lots of template parameters twiddling all sorts of knobs like what default construction should do, wide vs narrow observer functions, empty state to be formal, nearly-never or never and so on. End users then template alias the Outcome long template into a local edition configured as they want with whatever local name they want. If that's the consensus opinion, that's a fair bit of work to implement and I'm fairly sure it will affect compile times, but I am open to it. The single implementation-many personality design I chose is very amenable to such knobs for twiddling. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/