Hi, I really appreciate all your work on this proposal, I really think it would be great if std::expected made it into the standard.
I have one "feature request": In the current proposal you say:
This proposal doesn't include expected references as optional [C++17] doesn't include references either. We need a future proposal.
I don't think this is a meaningful comparison. optional<T&> adds no extra functionality compared to T*, so I assume the committee probably thought it was a waste of time. On the other hand, expected<T&, Error> clearly adds additional functionality compared to T*.
In my company we have tried to take an approach similar to std::expected, packaging an optional together with an error, but it didn't get received well because of the lack of references. Nobody wants to use std::expected<std::reference_wrapper<T>, Error> as the return type to a function in an API.
Hi, I really appreciate all your work on this proposal, I really think it would be great if
std::expectedmade it into the standard.I have one "feature request": In the current proposal you say:
I don't think this is a meaningful comparison.
optional<T&>adds no extra functionality compared toT*, so I assume the committee probably thought it was a waste of time. On the other hand,expected<T&, Error>clearly adds additional functionality compared toT*.In my company we have tried to take an approach similar to
std::expected, packaging anoptionaltogether with an error, but it didn't get received well because of the lack of references. Nobody wants to usestd::expected<std::reference_wrapper<T>, Error>as the return type to a function in an API.