Too late for review, but as it is just a comment on class names, who knows... On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 5:19 PM, Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@isonews2.com> wrote:
Second I would like a name like factory_ptr or factory_pointer more than only factory for the class. It shows more whats the problem domain of the factory, and stands more in parallel to factory_value.
I disagree - it's just confusing :-) as one might conclude the factory itself for being a smart pointer or being applicable only to pointers.
A similar argumentation applies to "factory_value".
For John, who dislikes the naming scheme, and trying to avoid the first problem (misleading _ptr at the end maybe confusing with smart pointer names), maybe names could be changed according to what they do, not what they return. I am thinking in 'heap_factory' (more simple, misleading if anyone uses a non-heap allocator) or 'allocated_factory' for the pointer returning class, and something alike for 'factory_value', maybe 'stack_factory'. David