Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-14 14:45:37
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Joseph Thomson via Boost
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Gavin Lambert via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2017 12:24, Joseph Thomson via Boost wrote:
>>> I initially read that as `caged_ptr`. I looked up the definition, and it
>>> does seem to have the right meaning. If such an uncommon word is
>>> undesirable, perhaps `obseved_ptr` or `watched_ptr` would be preferable
>>> (the "-ed" form of the veb matches `shared_ptr`).
>> At the risk of devolving into a bikeshed, I don't really like anything
>> that implies observing or watching unless it has the semantics of weak_ptr
>> and knows when it is no longer pointing to a valid object.
>> How about borrowed_ptr, unbound_ptr, irresponsible_ptr, unowned_ptr, or
>> not_null_ptr? (Though a shorter typedef probably should be encouraged in
>> practice or people would likely just stick with *.)
> A previous name I used was `indirect`, to give it an air of pointer-ness
> without using the terms "pointer" or "reference" (though it doesn't have a
> `_ptr` suffix). If we're being creative, the name could emphasise how the
> pointee is liable to die before the pointer itself.
volatile int * ptr; // a volatile pointer
Rule 5 about naming - avoid "spoken ambiguity" - If I say to another
dev "you need to use a volatile pointer here" did I mean volatile_ptr
or volatile Foo * ?
I kinda like that one.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk