From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-27 14:23:32
From: Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> Alternative names:
Now that you raised a flag on the "move_ptr" name, I do agree
that it isn't appropriate. "Move" is a verb, so "move_ptr" looks
like a command.
Many pointers are owned, they just have differing ownership
There are many unique pointers, but they aren't necessarily
movable or, rather, subject to being moved.
Many pointers have but one owner, but that doesn't mean that they
Similar to unique_ptr.
This has the right idea. It says that there is no sharing; that
there can only ever be one owner of the resource at a time.
I don't think we need to condemn the pointer for its acting as
designed, do you?
I thought of "movable_ptr," but that's wrong because it suggests
that the pointer *may* be moved, but doesn't have to be moved.
How about "moving_ptr?" That suggests the transitive nature of
ownership, doesn't it? "transitive_ptr?"
How about something along the lines of "nonloyal_ptr?" That is,
it has no allegiance to a single owner, but moves among them at
will (well, not quite that freely, but I'm sure you get the
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk