[m-rev.] for post-commit review: maybe_succeeded

[Julien Fischer]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Peter Wang wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 06:06:01 +1000 "Zoltan Somogyi" <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
>> The diff is long and boring. The main issue I seek feedback on
>> is whether there is a better home for the new maybe_succeeded type
>> than process_util.m. Many of the primitives that can succeed or fail
>> are defined there, but not all, and with this diff, some modules import
>> process_util that didn't import it before.
>> 
>> The new type does not fit in well anywhere else that I can see;
>> e.g. it is quite different from everything else in maybe_error.m.
>> The only two other places I can think of for it are a new module
>> in the libs package (libs.succeeded or libs.maybe_succeeded),
>> or (possibly) definition in libs.m itself.
>> 
>> Ideas? Opinions?
>
> I think libs.maybe_succeeded is fine.

Agreed.

Julien.