> > [Anthony Williams] > > > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to > > allocate some memory, > > and > > > you get an HGLOBAL back --- a handle to the memory. [..] > > This sounds like a perfect case where using a smart_PTR would be very > > confusing, maybe dangerously so!
[Gennadiy] > The only place where you will see usage of the name smart_ptr is somewhere > deep in library code: > > typedef smart_ptr <...> GlobalMemoryHandler; > > After that you will use non-confusing name GlobalMemoryHandler. It may work out that way in this case - but why not make the name non-confusing in the first place? You appear here to concede that it *is* confusing. We are talking about smart_ptr and a potential smart_resource concept - not GloalMemoryHandler - that was just an example of where the naming becomes particularly confusing - whether it is buried deep in library code or not. I still have yet to hear why you do not like the idea of putting these concepts in their appropriate order? Thanks for your comments, Regards, [)o IhIL.. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
