Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)

Le 19/05/2017 à 15:48, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost a écrit :

2017-05-19 15:08 GMT+02:00 Niall Douglas via Boost :

...

...

...

The constexpr variables are already there. So basically do we prefer:

1. .ensure_empty(), .ensure_value(), .ensure_error() and .ensure_exception()

2. Or .ensure(empty), .ensure(value), .ensure(error) and .ensure(exception) I figure the latter looked nicer. It's same difference to the compiler, simple overload matching is constant time.

Just one note. If I use namspace prefixes, the notation with "constants" becomes longer:

`o.ensure_empty()` becomes `o.ensure(boost::outcome::empty)`

One could respond to this "just import anything from namespace `boost::outcome` into the scope", but that is imposing on me a certain style of programming, which I not necessarily want to adapt. Yes that's a good point.

Also, after a few nights of sleeping on it, I'm not keen on .ensure_XXX().

Would people be okay with:

* o.check() <= (void) o.value()

* o.check_error() <= (void) o.error()

* o.check_exception() <= (void) o.exception()

Given that this "ensure" functionality would be used rarely, and some even suggest there is no use case for it, I would be satisfied with this syntax `(void)o.value()`. +1 KISS Vicente