From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-26 11:17:22
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.
This makes for a good argument for not relying on the legacy name smart_ptr. Had your reason for why you would search for smart_ptr been "because the name intuitively reflects resource mangement in general", the name could be seen as adequet. Instead, your reason that you know to search for smart_ptr is that you already know the name and its overloaded meaning. That doesn't bode well for someone who isn't in the know.
>> History always has a way of biting us. [snip]
> This all would make sense if you could find at least "10 differences"
> between "smart resource" and "smart pointer".
Even if there is only one difference, then it still makes one tenth as much sense to optimize the name. Even that much sense is better than none.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk