Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Me neither.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
