C++ Iso Proposal Status

[Daniele Bordes]

Hallo,

I would like to know the status of the standard C++ proposal P0309R0
("Partial Class") that I sent some months ago, currently visible at
this address:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0309r0.pdf

Has it been discussed?
Was something decided about it?
Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,
Daniele Bordes

[Ville Voutilainen]

It was discussed in Oulu, pardon for the failure to convey the
feedback all the way to the proposal author.

Some polls:
Do we think we want a mechanism for forward-declaring the public
interface of a class? 0 | 1 | 11 | 5 | 0
Encourage more work on P0309r0? 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 7

Some quotes from the discussion:
"This actually has the performance cost that PImpl has in that you
have to have an inline function definition for some methods (e.g.,
isEmpty) if you don't want a performance cost. And nested classes.
This doesn't work. "
"Changing the head of the class has a very high bar. "

In other words, Evolution was unconvinced by the proposal.