From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-28 09:51:03
Dave Gomboc <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource<>, or just
>> > managed<>.
>> Why not just resource<>? Management is implied anyway; that's the
>> reason for the existence of the class.
> *laugh* I was thinking exactly the opposite. To me, the resource itself
> is clear from the template parameter -- it's the management that needs to
> be indicated.
> +1 for managed<>.
I'm with Dave G. on this one. resource<lock> doesn't tell me
anything; I already know that every lock is a resource.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk