Re: [boost] Interest in a flyweight library?

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-01 19:40:32

Jeff Garland wrote:
> 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?

I second Jeff. This is also the impression I get with intern, interned.
I've been using the flyweight pattern for a long time now, as a pattern
and not as actual classes, but I wouldn't mind seeing them as such.
I have no problem with it.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net