Re: [boost] Interest in a flyweight library?

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-01 11:52:24

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:

> 
> Please see my previous answer to Steve Harris. It'd help me
> a lot if, for uniformity's sake, name proposals could be given
> in this format:
> 
>   lib name / namespace names / main utility
> 
> like for instance:
> 
>   Boost.Intern / boost::intern / boost::interned<>
> 
> So, cast your vote :)

I have a problem with these names -- Boost.intern sounds like a developer that 
should be working on an SOC project.  'Interned' sounds like what happens when 
someone dies and is buried -- not too pleasant.  I think flyweight is better, 
although maybe some variant of 'wrapper' might be better.  Another question, 
C# and some other languages have the idea of 'boxing' -- perhaps that's what 
this really is?

Jeff