JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
----- Mensaje original ----- De: Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> Fecha: Jueves, Febrero 17, 2005 8:12 pm Asunto: [boost] Re: [indirect container] RFC on naming of library andclasses
[...]
If indirection is not really the unifying theme, perhaps you should use the name Boost.ManagedContainer, which I think was suggested at some point. ('ManagingContainer' might be more correct, but doesn't sound good.)
Managed container is a good name. To recap, I think these are good condidates: Boost. Managed Container Boost. Managed Pointer Container Boost. Pointer Container Boost. Clonable Container Boost. Clonable Pointer Container Boost. Cloned Container
My personal favourite would be Boost.Cloned Container with class names like this:
cloned_vector<T> cloned_map<Key,T>
I dislike the names involving clonability. Isn't it true that in many ordinary uses of the library there will be no cloning?
As for the "managed" line, I think it resonates with some issues none of which has to do with the subject at hand: * "managed" as bounds checked. * "managed" as belonging to the world of C++/CLI (ugh!)
We don't have to avoid every term Microsoft (or some other vendor) has uzed as a buzzword, do we?
Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Jonathan