Re: C++ Expected converted to idiomatic D
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 10:18:29 UTC, John Colvin wrote: I get the feeling from the talk that Andrei has some opinions about how it should be done that aren't completely in line with what has been proposed for the C++ standard. Anyhow my implementation at https://github.com/nordlow/phobos-next/blob/master/src/expected.d should match his C++ code in the lecture, AFAICT. My code doesn't depend on other modules an compiles very fast (~46 ms in my machine) (with DMD -debug -unittest).
Re: C++ Expected converted to idiomatic D
On Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 20:37:33 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote: In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVzgkepAg5Y Andrei describes his proposal for STL `Expected` planned to be included in C++20. Have anybody converted the C++ proposal to idiomatic D, yet? Hopefully without the pointer-legacy which unfortunately was allowed into `std:optional`. Andrei claims we should it as return types for non-throwing variants of parse() and to() in the works at https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6665 I get the feeling from the talk that Andrei has some opinions about how it should be done that aren't completely in line with what has been proposed for the C++ standard.
Re: C++ Expected converted to idiomatic D
On Thursday, 16 August 2018 at 20:37:33 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote: In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVzgkepAg5Y Andrei describes his proposal for STL `Expected` planned to be included in C++20. Have anybody converted the C++ proposal to idiomatic D, yet? Hopefully without the pointer-legacy which unfortunately was allowed into `std:optional`. Andrei claims we should it as return types for non-throwing variants of parse() and to() in the works at https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6665 I've got a basic version up and running: https://github.com/pbackus/expected
C++ Expected converted to idiomatic D
In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVzgkepAg5Y Andrei describes his proposal for STL `Expected` planned to be included in C++20. Have anybody converted the C++ proposal to idiomatic D, yet? Hopefully without the pointer-legacy which unfortunately was allowed into `std:optional`. Andrei claims we should it as return types for non-throwing variants of parse() and to() in the works at https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6665
