Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic return type?
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 19:41:27
On 26 May 2015 at 23:26, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> So the question is, do we have the proposed interface for expected, or
> something else?
> Would be the 'to be named type" a literal type?
I would far prefer if Expected were layered with increasing amounts
of complexity, so you only pay for what you use.
I also think you need to await the WG21 variant design to become
close to completion. It makes no sense to have an Expected not using
that variant implementation, you're just duplicating work.
Other than that, I found the interface generally good. I only ever
needed about 10% of it personally, but it would be nice if the
remainder were available by switching it on maybe with an explicit
conversion to a more intricate subclass. The more intricate subclass
would of course live in a separate header. Pay only for what you use.
Niall
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/