From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-06 09:55:38
"Caleb Epstein" <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:36:17 +0300, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| > Howard Hinnant wrote:
| > > On Oct 5, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
| > >
| > >> (I now like Howard Hinnant's suggested "unique_ptr", though he
| > >> seems to be leaning toward "sole_ptr" now.)
| > >
| > > I am sooooooooo fickle! :-)
| > FWIW, sole_ptr doesn't look very appealing to this non-native speaker. ;-)
| > unique_ptr isn't much better but at least I can associate it with
| > shared_ptr::unique().
| Perhaps lone_ptr?
what was wrong with move_ptr? The fact that there is only one owner does not
need to be reflected in the
name; many pointers are like that...scoped_ptr, auto_ptr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk