Re: [boost] Interest in a flyweight library?

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:

Please see my previous answer to Steve Harris. It'd help me a lot if, for uniformity's sake, name proposals could be given in this format:

lib name / namespace names / main utility

like for instance:

Boost.Intern / boost::intern / boost::interned<>

So, cast your vote :)

I have a problem with these names -- Boost.intern sounds like a developer that should be working on an SOC project. 'Interned' sounds like what happens when someone dies and is buried -- not too pleasant. I think flyweight is better, although maybe some variant of 'wrapper' might be better. Another question, C# and some other languages have the idea of 'boxing' -- perhaps that's what this really is? Jeff