From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-25 18:17:10
When Mark Terribile proposed a class like this way back in
the last century I think he called it "releaser".
At 04:00 PM 2/25/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
>> This is an excellent point. One doesn't go looking for a class
>> named "smart_ptr" or a library named "Boost.SmartPointer" when
>> looking to manage the lifetime of some arbitrary resource. When
>> one uses pointers, it makes sense.
>I would be searching namely for smart_ptr. I know that smart pointer is the
>name for the resource management idiom.
>> > It is a shame for things to simply be the way that they are simply
>> > because they started out from a specific beginning...
>> History always has a way of biting us. In this case, we are
>> creating something brand new in Boost. There isn't a PBSP in
>> boost. Therefore, if it is a manifestation of a SmartResource
>> concept or is implemented in terms of a smart_resource class
>> isn't as important as the recognition that it is a special case
>> of the more abstract concept.
>> There can still be a smart_ptr class, even if there's a
>> smart_resource class. Both may be separate manifestations,
>> possibly sharing some implementation details, of a SmartResource
>> concept. Equally plausible, smart_ptr could be implemented in
>> terms of smart_resource somehow (derivation, aggregation,
>This all would make sense if you could find at least "10 differences"
>between "smart resource" and "smart pointer".
>> Names are important. Witness the recent discussion about whether
>> pointers are resources, refer to resources, or may refer to
>> resources. Words convey meaning. The wrong words confuse. The
>> right words clarify. The same is true for names. Yes, one can
>> learn that "smart_ptr" means resource manager for which pointer
>> semantics may be appropriate. But, far better is to have
>> "smart_resource" and "smart_ptr" as separate classes. The latter
>> provides a superset of the behavior of the former, but the former
>> may be precisely what's needed in a given context.
>In general I agree that names are important. In general, but not in this
>If names are so important for you here, why do you try to use the name
>What is "smart" here? May be we should use "clever" or "cunning" or "wise"?
>And what word "resource" is doing here? It almost never the resource itself,
>but the manager code for some resource (it may not even hold reference to
>the resource itself inside). As I sad before IMO most close name would be
>"resource_manager". But I still do not see a reason in introducing new
>terms, while already exist well established idiom with name "smart pointer"
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk