Alisdair Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Dimov wrote: > > >> It depends on the choice of template parameters, of course. If you go the PB >> way, resource<> is definitely a contender: > > This is definitely the direction I was thinking. Otherwise, we get > shared_resource, scoped_resource, movable_resource, etc and we start > wanting an abbreviation like _ptr <g> [or in this case, _rsrc?] > > I certainly like the policy approach here, as I see a policy-based smart > pointer and a policy-based resource-manager sharing ownership policies. > I still see them as different but related concepts though.
I just want to point out, before I leave this conversation, that it hasn't been demonstrated that a useful design for a generalized resource manager is even possible, so worrying about names might be a way to avoid dealing with the issue of clarifying what it is/does and how it works ;-) -Dave "Bicycle Shed" Abrahams -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
