Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Adding polymorphic_value to boost
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-20 19:41:29

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Zach Laine wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Coe via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > I’m 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.
> OK, but this makes the submission a bit different than ordinary.

True enough. This exact scenario is unique AFAIK.

> Usually, in the course of the Boost review process, reviewers suggest
> changes and improvements, and can base their acceptance vote on some of
> these changes being applied.
> If I understand correctly, polymorphic_value as proposed is not open to
> any changes, because it has already been blessed by the LWG. Done and
> dusted.

That's not my understanding, nor what I expect. I'm one of the people who
keeps insisting in LEWG that things go through Boost (or other avenues of
widespread use) before being standardized. My expectation is that the
review will be very instructive, even if the library is rejected.
Rejection is actually a very important data point! I would expect LEWG to
delay standardization or to do a substantial re-think of whether this
should be standardized at all if it is rejected.

So Jonathan does not actually solicit feedback. It is what it is, take it
> or leave it.

I think that overstates it a bit, having talked to Jonathan about this.
Again, Jonathan can correct me if I'm wrong.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at