Re: [boost] [variant2] Review of Variant2 started today : April 1 - April 10

2 Apr 2019


      On 4/2/19 7:31 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
...
On 4/2/19 4:18 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
...
Andrey Semashev wrote:
...
...
Michael Caisse wrote:
...
Note: The repository contains an expected implementation also; 
however, >> that is not being considered in this review.
To be clear, I do intend to finish `expected` and provide it as
On 4/2/19 3:55 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
part of > the library.
Will it be reviewed separately?
No. If you don't like it, now is the time to reject.
In that case, `expected` should be part of this review and contribute to 
the final decision.
...
...
Also, IMHO, it's better to have libraries more focused and fine 
grained. Why not have `expected` as a separate library?
expected is basically a variant, with a slightly different 
interface.
It might be implemented like/with variant, but conceptually this is a 
different component. Just like `optional` is a different component than 
`variant`. All these components have different use cases and communicate 
different intentions.
Personally, I've always found that characterizing option, expected, et. 
all as different/unique components is a bad idea.  I much prefer a 
single simple idea - a variant as a simple sum of other types - while 
the others are more specific "variations" of the fundamental type.  It's 
less redundant, easier to reason about, easier to remember, and less 
work to document.  There is also a natural C++ implementation in terms 
of inheritance.

Robert Ramey
...
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: 
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost