I was interested in this root_ptr so I had a look and I’ve got to say that it doesn’t appear particularly similar to Herb Sutter’s deferred_heap/deferred_ptr to me, the primary point of that, as given in the name, is that it defers destructor calls by storing them so that you can be sure that all the correct destructors will be called and root_ptr doesn’t do this. Also deferred_heap/deferred_ptr has its own allocator that means that you don’t have to pass around node_proxys. Finally when a deferred_heap is destructed, or cleanup performed, it nulls out deferred_ptrs first so that you don’t need to check for cycles explicitly in your destructor.
The only thing that seems to have been embraced from root_ptr is the idea of trying to deal with reference counting cycles.

Finally though, in the CppCon talk when this was presented it was made very clear that this was an experiment and that someone else could take this and run with it, if you take the innovations from deferred_ptr and integrate them into root_ptr I’m sure Herb would be delighted, this is the whole point of open source.

Jonathan Tanner

> On 5 Aug 2021, at 5:48 am, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On 8/4/21 11:09 PM, Jason McKesson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 6:55 PM Phil Bouchard <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/4/21 6:43 PM, Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also... you never *actually* answered the point. Namely, that you're
>>>> talking about "embracing" C++ and "extending" it with
>>>> patent-proprietary technologies that will ensure that anyone trying to
>>>> implement it will only be able to do so if they agree to your terms.
>>> The ISO committee allows this in mechanics, electronics, ... and its fine. Why not software engineering?
>> Again, you kinda side-stepped the point.You're saying "Microsoft is
>> bad for embracing and extending. Also, here's my proposal to embrace
>> and extend C++!" Do you not see a contradiction there?
> You're right but I already negotiated the framework that can be used for unpatented memory manager alternatives. I personality think a mixture of smart pointers and a garbage collector is the second best alternative as proven by Python.
>
> Please understand that software engineering is now protected by patent laws and I personally think it's great because it's the only way to protect ourselves against a giant squid like Microsoft. We're not in the 70s anymore, time changes so let's not swim against the river.
>
> Maybe I will dissolve the patent eventually but for now I need protection.
>
>>
>> In any case, the patent issue is not *just* about ISO's rules. GCC is
>> released under GPL. Does GPL even *allow* them to ship a version
>> containing patented code? If not, you've just lost one of the 3 major
>> C++ compilers.
> Good observation... Actually the Boost license I am using is questionable but I can just change it to the Apache license that protects both the patent licensee and patent contributors which is permissive at the same time:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences
>
>
>
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather C++ die a slow death against Rust than have it
>> encumbered by patents.
> (That's the last thing I would expect to hear from a ISO C++ committee member... but okay)
>
> We still have legacy code around anyways.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 7:19 PM Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/4/21 7:14 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 01:44, Phil Bouchard <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/4/21 6:34 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>>>>> I must admit I utterly fail to see what any of this discussion has to
>>>>>> do with proposals for the C++ standard.
>>>>> My point is I will circle back with the community because I will use C++ for AI R&D.
>>>> In other words, nothing, so please take this off-topic noise elsewhere.
>>> Nothing? GPU programming, parallel processing and AI algorithms can eventually be upgraded into a library and part of it into the standards.
>> His point is that you're not coming to us with a proposal for any of
>> that *at the present time*. You're basically saying, "here's a product
>> we're working on (that has some submarine patents in it, but I totally
>> won't use them to hurt programmers, honest!) that maybe I want to
>> standardize as a separate language kind of thing that maybe gets
>> folded into C++ eventually".
>>
>> This forum is for proposals for the C++ language, and this as of yet isn't that.
> This thread is about recruiting for a new SCC / ISO C++ Superset branch but I understand if the patent traumatises everybody but in no way I will fully unpatent it for the moment. I rather die in agonizing pain than seeing Microsoft embracing and extending my efforts again.
>
>
> --
>
> Phil Bouchard
> Founder & CTO
> C.: (819) 328-4743
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals