Brian Gray wrote: > On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:15 AM, David Abrahams wrote: >> "Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Could it not just be called shared. After all it is merely a more >>> general >>> term of shared_ptr. And the type of the resource kind of makes it >>> implicit. >> >> std::auto_ptr is a non-shared resource manager. > > So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource<>, or just > managed<>.
Why not just resource<>? Management is implied anyway; that's the reason for the existence of the class. -- Joel de Guzman joel at boost-consulting.com http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
