Re: [boost] [interprocess, aka shmem] Some proposals for open issues from the review

Removing "_services" seems to be descriptive enough from my POV:

boost::interprocess::shared_memory boost::interprocess::mapped_file boost::interprocess::heap_memory boost::interprocess::external_memory

Do you really need to have it mean something more by adding a suffix?

The problem is that shared_memory and mapped_file already exist and those classes just create a shared memory segment and a mapped file (operating system wrappers just like a mutex). I'm talking about classes that above those they offer dynamic allocation and named object allocation in shared memory and memory-mapped files. "Services" may not be a correct name but I don't know how to express the functionality of those classes. Ion