Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: impl_ptr (pimpl)
From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-09 09:59:12
@Vladimir - issue posted on github.
On 9 September 2017 at 09:52, Vladimir Batov via Boost <
> On 2017-09-09 17:12, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir, great to see that good has come of the review process.
> Well, to clarify -- there was no Boost review... There was some initial
> (and very useful) input to my submission request but Boost-wise the
> submission did not get anywhere... as the review mgr could not be found...
> so far anyway. Still, something good indeed has come of as after Giel's
> effort impl_ptr is a serious smart pointer for the purpose.
> If you'll allow my first commit to add a CMakeLists.txt file I'll happily
>> just start using it and contributing where possible.
> All contributions are most and truly welcome. For starters I'd suggest you
> fork the project first into your GitHub userspace. Apply your changes.
> Then, submit a pull request, Giel or I will be happy to merge it in. I
> might not be able to do that for a few more days (I am away). Looking
> forward to your input.
> On 8 September 2017 at 22:53, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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,
>>> drifts out of the scope and is left behind/forgotten. It's unfortunate.
>>> RE: obscurity
>>> You might consider going to https://github.com/yet-another-user/pimpl
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> has certainly something to offer functionality-wise and deployment-wise
>>> beyond manual pimpl-idiom implementation and would be a useful addition
>>> the existing set of smart pointers...
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk