Re: [boost] [shmem] Some proposals for open issues from the review

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-19 17:16:43

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> IPC > InterProcess, even for a library that is not just for
>> communications. It's a better name, not necessarily a better
>> description, just like Shmem is a better name than shared_memory.
>
>   Shptr<T> x(new T)
>
> ??  ;-)

shared_pointer<T> x( new T );

? :-)

shared_ownership_pointer<T> x( new T );

?? :-))

Shptr<> is actually not that bad, but shared_ptr > Shptr because of the 
scoped/auto/weak_ptr relatives.

> Seriously, why is "Shmem" better than "shared_memory?"

Because it's short and unique. You can still pronounce it "shared memory", 
if you like.