Subject: Re: [boost] Adding polymorphic_value to boost
From: Jonathan Coe (jonathanbcoe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-20 19:12:41
> On 20 Nov 2017, at 18:29, Zach Laine via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Coe via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 20 Nov 2017, at 17:59, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>> Two classes instead of one is not without its downsides, since they are
>> very similar in both appearance in behavior, but on the plus side, this
>> allows us to make the interface of the pointer class unapologetically
>> pointer-like and the interface of the value class... well, as
>> value-not-pointer-like as possible, which isn't much due to op->, but
>> still. :-)
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
>> Iâm proposing adding polymorphic_value to boost, not cloned_ptr. My
>> submission to boost is intended to mirror my submission to the C++
>> standards committee.
> To answer the proximate question, LEWG wanted nothing to do with clone_ptr,
> whether or not it is designed to support or interoperate with
> polymorphic_value. Jonathan, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Zac is correct. LEWG requested that const propagation was added to X and that it ceased to be pointer-like. I agree with their direction.
Sean (Parent) gave a rather nice talk which mentioned this at code dive 2016:
https://youtu.be/cK_kftBNgBc about 40 mins in.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk