The current shared_array doesn't keep track of size. This greatly decreases it's usefulness. So I wrote a variant that does: http://pastebin.com/wkdLVqM1
I'd personally call it a shared_range.
Why? The class owns the content. A range does not own the content.
Because the class knows its end. A shared_array does not know its end. And because your implementation is-an iterator_range. Re: Peter Dimov's comment that:
One question you'll invariably get from people is why you don't store begin into the shared_ptr, eliminating one pointer...
shared_ptr<T> begin_; size_t size_;
If one thinks of the class as a resource-owning iterator_range, I think a three member (shared_ptr/iterator_range) implementation gives more flexibility (e.g. sub range instances could track resource ownership against the same shared_ptr). If one thinks of the class as a shared_array with a length function, the two member (shared_ptr/size_t) implementation is definitely more space efficient. In that case, I'd personally not publicly inherit from iterator_range and would follow Peter's implementation suggestion (possibly using a shared_array instead of a shared_ptr). - Rhys