Re: [boost] Re: resource manager naming

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<lock>
managed<widget,shared> // Smart pointer

resource<lock>
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.

Regards,

Terje