>From: "Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>> So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource<>, or just > >>> managed<>. > >> > >> Why not just resource<>? Management is implied anyway; that's the > >> reason for the existence of the class. > > > > *laugh* I was thinking exactly the opposite. To me, the resource > > itself > > is clear from the template parameter -- it's the management that > > needs to > > be indicated. > > > > +1 for managed<>. > > What template parameter? That's not a part of the name. > Template parameters, just like function arguments are never > a part of the name. You do not need to read the header file > to get the essence. The name itself should indicate the function > of the class without looking elsewhere. > > managed<>? What is managed? ... answer: take a look at > the template parameter and you'll see what I mean. I'm > sorry, that doesn't make sense.
managed<lock> managed<widget,shared> // Smart pointer resource<lock> resource<widget,shared> // Smart pointer When the template is in use (unless it uses a default template argument), the template argument will be part of the signature, and therefore show what is managed. Therefore, I think managed<> makes sense, too. IIUC, your argument can be used for e.g. std::pair, too. std::pair<> of what? Answer: That depends on the template arguments. Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
