Re: [boost] (RFC) make_shared name change

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-14 12:37:07

Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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. 

Me neither.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution