At 09:16 AM 2/28/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >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 ;-)
Which is why the original releaser<> proposal is not in the standard. There are just too many different kinds of resource, with too many different ways of acquiring and releasing them. So it wasn't clear that any general facility could improve on just wrapping each resource in a class with constructors that acquire the resource and a destructor that releases it. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
