2017-09-28 0:51 GMT+02:00 Niall Douglas via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org>:
So here's the question before any second peer review. Should Outcome v2 provide:
1. No Expected implementation at all, not even under a different name. Not its place.
2. The Expected implementation which the consensus on boost-dev felt the WG21 Expected ought to be (this is the current situation, and no we don't call it `expected<T, E>`).
3. A closely conforming, but not exactly conforming [1], implementation of WG21 Expected.
Options 2 and 3 can be combined. But be aware that Peter rolled together an even more conforming Expected implementation using his variant2 library. I had been assuming people would be better advised to use his likely exactly conforming implementation, rather than Outcome v2's not exactly conforming implementation. Less surprise.
Thoughts?
Just to clarify your question. Outcome v2 will provide a number of ways for the user to customize the interface: different templates, hooks, ability to derive from base templates and modify behavior. Correct? You are considering shipping Outcome v2 with one such customized type that resembles Expected as close as possible in order to: 1. Demonstrate that this is possible 2. Because many people will want to use a type they have learned from reading proposals for Expected. Right? Regards, &rzej;