> Well the problem I see is that we are using an entity with > "pointer" written > all over it (the name especially, but also the primary > semantics). Surely > managing general resources according to RAII principles is a > more general > concept than managing pointers to objects? > At the very least there should be a smart resource concept, > perhaps embodied > in a shared_resource template or, better still, a policy-based > smart_resource. shared_ptr/ smart_ptr may then be specialisations or > instantiations of these. > I have argued previously that these concepts should be kept > separate such > that smart_resource is a parallel concept to smart_ptr, but > recently I am > inclined to agree that there is a relationship. However many > (most?) of the > smart_ptr proponents seem to favour assimilating the smart > resource concept > into smart_ptr itself!
1. It's all only word games. smart_ptr does not really *point* to resource, or *refer* to the resource. In essence it MANAGE the resource. The way it point/refer to the resource is secondary (it may be c++ pointer, c++ reference, some kind of handle and so on). So the best name may be smart_manager, or even smart_resource_maanger. But I would prefer existent name. It's well esteblished idiom: you say smart pointer - one understand that we are talking about resource management. 2. As for the difference in semantics between generic smart_resource and smart_prt, I argue that once you start implementing generic all purpose framework for smart resource management you will end up with the same semantics as smart_ptr has (there may be some minor differencies with comparison operators) Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
