Re: [boost] Re: weak_ptr

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-20 17:55:40

From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>

> From: "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > Rather: "maybe_dead"{_something}. ;-)
> >
> I think it does communicate better the purpose, but it's kind of
> odd-looking.

I don't like it; it confuses the reference and the referent. THe "weak
thingie" isn't "maybe dead".

> How about 'untracked' ?, or 'weakly_tracked' / 'weakly_managed' /
> "weakly_counted"....

There's a long tradition behind the term "weak reference", which I think is
a sensible term here. I think an earlier version of weak_ptr had
dereferencing operations, but now that it does not, "weak_ptr" is a
less-sensible name.

-----------------------------------------------------------
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com