From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-28 04:29:49
>From: "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> Terje Slettebø wrote:
> >> 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.
> No, a pair is always a pair regardless of what the composed types are:
> pair<T1, T2> // a pair comprised of T1 and T2
> You don't need to know the template parameters to know that it
> is a *pair*. That's the big difference. The template parameter is an
> concept. Detached from the parameters, it is still a pair. The same does
> hold for managed<T>. What is "managed"? It is not even a noun without the
Good point, it's not a noun. "resource_manager", "manager" or "resource" are
nouns, so they may be better.
> managed<widget> // does this *manage* the actual rendering into the
> Gotcha! No it doesn't!
To adjust it so it becomes a noun:
Manager of widget. It's kind of implied that what is managed is the resource
itself, even though "resource" doesn't say anywhere. This is similar to that
you think it's implied that resource<widget> means it manages the resource,
even though "manage" doesn't say anywhere.
By the way, I used "widget" in the meaning of "anything", as it's used some
places (like "foo" and "bar").
"resource_manager" starts to look attractive, again. ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk