Re: [boost] Re: resource manager naming

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-28 09:51:03

Dave Gomboc <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> > 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<>.

I'm with Dave G. on this one.  resource<lock> doesn't tell me
anything; I already know that every lock is a resource.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com