It should not be easier via C++11, no.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote: > Is going the void route gonna be easier with c++11? If yes, I would prefer > void over Nothing. > > @vinodkone > Sent from my mobile > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:15 PM, "Benjamin Hindman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Sept. 11, 2012, 9:32 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > >>> This definitely needs to get done, so I'm stoked you took it on! > However, this is the kind of thing I think merits some discussion (before > unnecessary work is done ... sorry). In particular, I had created > 'Try<void>' some time ago for this exact reason, but didn't use it after > thinking we might want to use 'Try<Nothing>' instead. Here were the pros I > saw to using 'Try<void>': > >>> > >>> + It captures the "void" return type well. ;) > >>> + We can eliminate 'Try<void>::get' so that people can't even attempt > to get something that doesn't exist (although, a 'get' on a Try<Nothing> > returns an object that you can't really do anything with, so it's very > harmless). > >>> > >>> However, there were also cons: > >>> > >>> - The 'Try<void>' implementation is mostly duplicated code. > >>> - You have to do 'return Try<void>::some();' which doesn't read as > nice as it could (at least, not as nice as 'return Nothing();'). > >>> - To do the same thing for Result and Future will require lots of > duplicated code, which is at least a non-starter for Future and thus we'll > probably always be using Future<Nothing> for asynchronous cases (and it > seems much cleaner to be consistent). > >>> > >>> For these reasons, I was slightly more inclined towards > 'Try<Nothing>'. Naturally, I'd love to hear others thoughts! > >> > >> Ben Mahler wrote: > >> You've brought up some good points, I would agree with killing > Try<void> entirely and switching this to do Try<Nothing> instead, does that > sound good? > >> > >> What I originally wanted was just non-templatized Try instead of > Try<void>, but again that requires the duplicated code and likely returning > a messy Try::some() rather than Nothing(). > > > > Well, Try<Nothing> is my vote, so if nobody else has any input, I say go > for it. > > > > > > - Benjamin > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7001/#review11357 > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > On Sept. 11, 2012, 5:05 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- > >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7001/ > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> (Updated Sept. 11, 2012, 5:05 p.m.) > >> > >> > >> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Jie Yu. > >> > >> > >> Description > >> ------- > >> > >> We unnecessarily have Try<bool>s all over the place, these are > tri-state: {error, some:true, some:false}. It seems most cases, we never > use {some:false} in the function or the caller. > >> > >> So, this restores some sanity to use two-state Try<void>s: {error, some} > >> > >> > >> Diffs > >> ----- > >> > >> src/linux/cgroups.hpp 1a3cdc2 > >> src/linux/cgroups.cpp 53d611f > >> src/linux/fs.hpp 31a6100 > >> src/linux/fs.cpp 744aea6 > >> src/logging/logging.cpp d6d31ec > >> src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.hpp 00255b5 > >> src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp 8a121e0 > >> src/slave/gc.hpp 3760d09 > >> src/slave/gc.cpp 5212a41 > >> src/slave/process_based_isolation_module.cpp c0576bd > >> src/slave/slave.cpp 4ea1db1 > >> src/tests/cgroups_tests.cpp fbaa046 > >> src/tests/configurator_tests.cpp 8baed76 > >> src/tests/files_tests.cpp 6ef2004 > >> src/tests/stout_tests.cpp f690fac > >> src/tests/zookeeper_server.hpp 4f34910 > >> src/webui/webui.cpp d4f2ab9 > >> third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp 602db1f > >> third_party/libprocess/src/process.cpp 2d2b56c > >> > >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7001/diff/ > >> > >> > >> Testing > >> ------- > >> > >> osx 10.7 gcc 4.2.1 > >> redhat Red Hat 4.1.2-48 gcc 4.1.2 > >> > >> make > >> make check > >> > >> note that SampleFrameworks.PythonFramework is consistently failing on > red hat, unrelated to this change > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Ben Mahler > >> > >> > > >
