Boost logo

Boost :

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
> into
> boost sometime soon.

Thank you for your interest and encouragement. Much appreciated.

RE: review

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

RE: obscurity

You might consider going to
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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at