Alisdair Meredith wrote: > Martin Wille wrote: > >> Otherwise, I completely agree with Joel's reasoning that >> "resource" is the best name. > > I have mulled it over for a while, and tried to imagine myself coming > at the issue for the first time, as someone learning C++ rather than > learning/devising new tricks. > > In this case, I find resource seems to work best, even though it is > not my original term of choice. > > I certainly prefer it over anything with an abbreviation which may > work for native English speakers might break the word-association for > the rest [maybe being overly patronising here, after all it's not MY > problem <g>]
Many native C++ but non-native English speakers don't place much importance on names. You could call it "fish" or "frog" and it wouldn't slow me down one bit. ;-) However, an ownership strategy-derived name looks better. shared_ptr<T> shared<T*> shared<file> shared_file resource<file> // OK, a resource, but what happens when I copy it? resource<T*> // ditto ptr<T> // ditto, generic name, no meaning It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB way, resource<> is definitely a contender: smart_ptr<T, counted> resource<T*, counted> resource<T, counted> _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
