From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-20 15:34:59
> > [Anthony Williams]
> > > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to
> > allocate some memory,
> > and
> > > you get an HGLOBAL back --- a handle to the memory.
> > This sounds like a perfect case where using a smart_PTR would be very
> > confusing, maybe dangerously so!
> The only place where you will see usage of the name smart_ptr is somewhere
> deep in library code:
> typedef smart_ptr <...> GlobalMemoryHandler;
> After that you will use non-confusing name GlobalMemoryHandler.
It may work out that way in this case - but why not make the name
non-confusing in the first place?
You appear here to concede that it *is* confusing.
We are talking about smart_ptr and a potential smart_resource concept - not
GloalMemoryHandler - that was just an example of where the naming becomes
particularly confusing - whether it is buried deep in library code or not.
I still have yet to hear why you do not like the idea of putting these
concepts in their appropriate order?
Thanks for your comments,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk