On 29 Aug 2015 6:31 am, "Michael Caisse"
On 08/24/2015 10:21 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
On 8/24/15 9:59 AM, Sam Kellett wrote:
so taking the word monad and the namespace boost::monad seems to be a bit scary when in the future they could be used for a totally generic full fat haskell type monad in c++ as you say.
<snip>
I raised a few concerns about the "monad" "library" when it was first discussed on the list and never really bought into it as a boost library (as constituted) and don't think it should be included now. Though I'm skeptical of Niall's monad, I've got not complaint if Nail want's to make boost::afio::monad and later try to get it "promoted" to boost::monad. Doing this would demote Niall's monad to the status of implementation detail or private API and hence wouldn't irrevocably occupy any coveted territory. It would also make the review of AFIO much easier and more likely to pass. It would also be an easy change for Niall to (promise to) make.
Hi Niall -
There have been several suggestions (implicit and explicit) to move this
type into the boost::afio namespace, but I haven' seen a response from you. Have I just missed it? As long as it is not in the detail namespace it will be subject to review though and expected to be properly named and documented. I will much more willing to accept a Boost::afio::monad than a Boost::monad though. -- gpd