Peter Dimov wrote: > > Perhaps, but some names are "less bad". It is a convention that make_* names > are constructor aliases; this is not the case here, so I conclude that > make_shared isn't a particularly good choice.
I've always seen it another way: make_* names are convenience functions which use argument deduction to save me some typing (there are even cases where I can't write the type down easily). I don't expect them to match on constructors directly. Is there any reference about which is the "right" meaning of make_*? What do others think? > >From semantic point of view, it's more like "This function will obtain a > shared_ptr to the object identified by the weak_ptr argument. If there is no > such object, an empty shared_ptr is returned." Which omits the type deduction part. It seems that this is why I have problems moving away from make_*... > To me, get_shared_ptr seems to express this a bit better than make_shared. To me, it's worse. Let's see what others think about this... :) Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
