>From: "Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > manager<widget> > > > > Manager of widget. It's kind of implied that what is managed is the > > resource itself, even though "resource" doesn't say anywhere. This is > > similar to that you think it's implied that resource<widget> means it > > manages the resource, even though "manage" doesn't say anywhere. > > Look at it this way. Which noun best describes the following: > 1) You acquire it > 2) You release it > 3) You transfer its ownership > > A) manager > B) resource > C) managed
Resource. > > "resource_manager" starts to look attractive, again. ;) > > Perhaps. But there's a *better* and *shorter* alternative that very well fits > the description. We can say: linear_list_of_items_manager<int>, YUCK! > Instead, we say list<int>. The management *is* implicit! Right. > Also, in general, I would say that any name suffixed by "_manager" are best > used for classes that manage *many* things simultaneously, NOT JUST ONE. > Take a window_manager for example. It is something that manages the operations > of many windows. In the Macintosh, for example, the resource manager manages > "all* the resources in an application. Right again. Ok, I agree that resource<> may be a useful name for it, with implied management, like e.g. std::list<>, as you say. Anyway, as Dave A points out in another posting, and which was also the topic of an earlier of mine, the usefulness of the concept in the first place hasn't been demonstrated. The reason I jumped in on the naming discussion, is that I thought managed<>, or rather manager<> could be a possibility, as well. I thought the same that Dave said, that resource<widget> doesn't really tell me much, as it seems it's saying the same thing twice; widged is a resource. Also, as Gennadiy points out, list<> is a list, while resource<> is not a resource; it's a manager of a resource. Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
