Zach Laine wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Coe via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> 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. 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. So Jonathan does not actually solicit feedback. It is what it is, take it or leave it.