From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-28 01:56:14
>From: "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> Dave Gomboc wrote:
> >>> 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<>.
> What template parameter? That's not a part of the name.
> Template parameters, just like function arguments are never
> a part of the name. You do not need to read the header file
> to get the essence. The name itself should indicate the function
> of the class without looking elsewhere.
> managed<>? What is managed? ... answer: take a look at
> the template parameter and you'll see what I mean. I'm
> sorry, that doesn't make sense.
managed<widget,shared> // Smart pointer
resource<widget,shared> // Smart pointer
When the template is in use (unless it uses a default template argument),
the template argument will be part of the signature, and therefore show what
is managed. Therefore, I think managed<> makes sense, too.
IIUC, your argument can be used for e.g. std::pair, too. std::pair<> of
what? Answer: That depends on the template arguments.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk