read VS outcome

It was on the mailing list that screens proposals prior to writing papers. Basically it was for making input much easier to work with, like this: https://github.com/ShakaUVM/read

I have thought about submitting a library of mine (https://github.com/ShakaUVM/read) for standardization or inclusion in Boost. Basically it does for input what format did for output - replace the stream system with something more functional.

Using readlib:

That's why I wrote my read library (https://github.com/ShakaUVM/read). You can just do:

5) Make input come from functions rather than call by reference, such as what I did here: https://github.com/ShakaUVM/read

https://github.com/ned14/outcome/tree/develop/abi-compliance uses both in a CI pass to ensure Outcome never changes anything which breaks either API or ABI with earlier versions.

outcome and/or expected

A "Sample Usage" appears on the front page of the docs: https://ned14.github.io/outcome/

I recently came across boost outcome as I was searching for a better error handling method. It took me a minute to get a hang of it but now I love it. After creating my own policy and a few aliases for easier use.

std::optional and std::variant can be a bit awkward to use in this scenario, though. Consider a dedicated type like boost::outcome (standalone versions) or one of the implementations of the proposed std::expected.

Minimum possible compile time impact is a key goal of https://github.com/ned14/outcome. We ship a single header edition which only includes the low impact standard headers as listed at https://github.com/ned14/stl-header-heft. We also don't use union storage for non-TC non-MB types in order to avoid complex metaprogramming execution by the compiler per instantiation.

It's really weird that I wrote the above, and then this bug was reported to Outcome: https://github.com/ned14/outcome/issues/244. Here is my exact complaint about lack of lifetime tracking in C++.