Terje Slettebų wrote: >> You don't need to know the template parameters to know that it >> is a *pair*. That's the big difference. The template parameter is an >> abstract concept. Detached from the parameters, it is still a pair. >> The same does > not >> hold for managed<T>. What is "managed"? It is not even a noun >> without the qualifiers. > > Good point, it's not a noun. "resource_manager", "manager" or > "resource" are nouns, so they may be better. > >> managed<widget> // does this *manage* the actual rendering into >> the window? >> >> Gotcha! No it doesn't! > > To adjust it so it becomes a noun: > > manager<widget> > > Manager of widget. It's kind of implied that what is managed is the > resource itself, even though "resource" doesn't say anywhere. This is > similar to that you think it's implied that resource<widget> means it > manages the resource, even though "manage" doesn't say anywhere. > > By the way, I used "widget" in the meaning of "anything", as it's > used some places (like "foo" and "bar").
Look at it this way. Which noun best describes the following: 1) You acquire it 2) You release it 3) You transfer its ownership A) manager B) resource C) managed > "resource_manager" starts to look attractive, again. ;) Perhaps. But there's a *better* and *shorter* alternative that very well fits the description. We can say: linear_list_of_items_manager<int>, YUCK! Instead, we say list<int>. The management *is* implicit! Also, in general, I would say that any name suffixed by "_manager" are best used for classes that manage *many* things simultaneously, NOT JUST ONE. Take a window_manager for example. It is something that manages the operations of many windows. In the Macintosh, for example, the resource manager manages "all* the resources in an application. -- 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
