On 2/9/2017 1:56 PM, Gottlob Frege via Boost wrote:
Naming:
- I think pointer or reference like things should be named _ptr or _ref etc. (In comparison, optional and any can be null, but own their value, they don't reference an external value.)
I agree that adding _ptr to something that takes the form of a pointer is a good idea.
- 'observer' has already been taken by the Gang of Four as a design pattern. Unfortunately. We could re-take the term, but it does add confusion.
I see no confusion using a term which has been mentioned as a design pattern.
- I've suggested cadged_ptr in the past - it is not a great word, as it it not very common, but it is actually the right meaning.
I do not think it is necessary to use a fairly obscure word as opposed to a more common term, unless that common term is misleading.
And by not being common, it means we can imbue it with whatever meaning we'd like. In that sense it is a perfectly cromulent word.
Tony
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Joseph Thomson via Boost
wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Niall Douglas
wrote: The GSL is a *much* better home for it than Boost because then you'll have Bjarne batting for it, plus static checking support from Microsoft in VS2017 and Google via clang-tidy. You'll also get a *huge* userbase almost instantly, because the GSL or rather one of its C++ 98 clones is seeing exponential growth recently. It's amazingly useful for upgrading ancient C++ codebases.
For those who are interested, I have included `observer<T>` (but not `observer_ptr<T>`) as part of a proposal regarding the recommended use of pointers over at the C++ Core Guidelines https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines. If you feel so inclined, you can continue the discussion in the issue I created. I have taken on board some of the feedback I received in this thread, so thanks very much.
Issue: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/847 Proposal: https://github.com/hpesoj/gsl-pointers