|
|
Boost : |
From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-14 12:17:54
Peter Dimov wrote:
>
> Perhaps, but some names are "less bad". It is a convention that make_* names
> are constructor aliases; this is not the case here, so I conclude that
> make_shared isn't a particularly good choice.
I've always seen it another way: make_* names are convenience functions
which use argument deduction to save me some typing (there are even
cases where I can't write the type down easily). I don't expect them to
match on constructors directly. Is there any reference about which is
the "right" meaning of make_*? What do others think?
> >From semantic point of view, it's more like "This function will obtain a
> shared_ptr to the object identified by the weak_ptr argument. If there is no
> such object, an empty shared_ptr is returned."
Which omits the type deduction part. It seems that this is why I have
problems moving away from make_*...
> To me, get_shared_ptr seems to express this a bit better than make_shared.
To me, it's worse. Let's see what others think about this... :)
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk