[boost][review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[boost][review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)

Boost - Announce mailing list
Hi Everyone,


The formal review of Niall Douglas' Outcome library starts next week (Fri-19-May to Sun-28-May).

Your participation is encouraged, as the proposed library is uncoupled and focused, and reviewers don't need to be domain experts to appreciate the potential usefulness of the library and to propose improvements.  Everyone needs (and has suffered) error handling, and can compose an opinion on that topic.

Outcome is a header-only C++14 library providing expressive and type-safe ultra-lightweight error handling, suitable for low-latency code bases. 

Key features:

*- Makes using std::error_code from C++11's <system_error> more convenient and safe
*- Provides high-quality implementation of proposed std::expected<T,E> (on C++20 standards track)
*- Good focus on low-latency (with tests and benchmarks)
*- Error-handling algorithmic composition with-or-without C++ exceptions enabled
*- No dependencies (not even on Boost)

This review is timely, as C++17 brings us std::optional<T>.  The upcoming std::expected<T,E> (an implementation provided in Outcome) is a generalization of std::optional<T> that provides a <success|fail> value, where the unhappy result is a 'std::error_code' or an instance of "your-chosen-error-type".

The library further provides 'outcome<T,error-code,exception-ptr>' for handling <success|error|exception> to safely wrap throwing APIs.


ACCU 2017 talk including design rationale:


Latest tarball:

Note:  Tarball might be easiest; but if you want to clone from GitHub directly, after the clone you should run the following command to get the source zip exactly:  git submodule update --init --recursive

NEXT WEEK (when the public review is started):  Please post your comments and review to the boost mailing list (preferably), or privately to the Review Manager (to me ;-). Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:

- What is your evaluation of the design?

- What is your evaluation of the implementation?

- What is your evaluation of the documentation?

- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?

- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?

- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?

- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

And most importantly:

- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?

For more information about Boost Formal Review Process, see: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html

Thank you very much for your time and efforts.


Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-announce