On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:10:45PM +0100, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
IMHO, "cloned/clonable container" hardly suggests what the lib is about: a clonable object has a rather well defined meaning, and so a clonable container seems to mean a container with some sort of clone() memfun. "Clonable objects container" (better than "clonable pointer container") is 100% accurate, but too verbose. A possibility without ambiguities is "clone container", i.e. a container of clones.
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!)
So, if we rule out "indirect" for the reasons you explained, we're left with "pointer container". I think this is good: * std::set is a value container (elements have value semantics), so it is natural to extend the idea to ptr_set being a pointer container. * The term has some tradition. * It doesn't sugest anything different to what the lib is about. Actually ptr_containers do more than just holding pointers, but well. * When you augment the lib to support shared_ptrs, the name still holds.
To sum it up, I vote for "pointer container", "clone container" being my close-second choice.
As a short remark, I second this opinion with the strong preference over "pointer container". The library combines serveral aspects, but the "pointer" is actualy the only unifying entity in all of them. Regards, Pavol