Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: impl_ptr (pimpl)
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-08 20:53:48
On 2017-09-09 01:34, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:
> How is the review process moving on? I have a clear need for this in my
> code right now.
> Would love to see it get protection from obscurity by being accepted
> boost sometime soon.
Thank you for your interest and encouragement. Much appreciated.
As for the actual review, then (unfortunately) there is no one. From my
understanding the Boost review process has changed and now a submission
is only scheduled for a review IFF it gets a review manager. It is not a
position people queue for. :-) So, no one has come forward for impl_ptr
to be a review manager... as I can see for other submissions also...
Before such a manager-less submission would be put in the queue and stay
on the radar... Now such a submission generates initial interest on the
list, then drifts out of the scope and is left behind/forgotten. It's
You might consider going to https://github.com/yet-another-user/pimpl
and adding a star to the project. It raises its visibility in a GitHub
search with everything following.
RE: accepted into boost
Initially I personally had my doubts if it was not too simple, obvious
and basic. Now Giel van Schijndel joined in and made immense
contributions/improvements to all policies. Namely, 'unique' and
'copied' policies are std::unique_ptr-based and pimpl-objects are of the
'void*' size... no memory overhead!.. Hugely useful IMO. Then, for high
performance two in-place (no dyn. mem. allocation) policies are really
well-done with one such policy not having any mem. overhead at all. So,
IMO the submission has certainly something to offer functionality-wise
and deployment-wise beyond manual pimpl-idiom implementation and would
be a useful addition to the existing set of smart pointers...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk