JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
----- Mensaje original -----
I think flyweight is better, although maybe some variant of 'wrapper' might be better.
Would you care to submit your name proposal in the aforementioned format? Although I haven't said it before, it'd be good if the namespace did *not* coincide with that of the main utility, since it can lead to problems as descibred in
http://boost.org/libs/tuple/doc/design_decisions_rationale.html
in connection with the choice of namespace tuples instead of namespace tuple.
Sorry I didn't get all that. I was just throwing out some suggestions / comments...I'll let you handle the details :-)
Another question, C# and some other languages have the idea of 'boxing' -- perhaps that's what this really is?
I don't think so. From my limited knowledge of Java and C#, where this term is used, boxing consists of the procedure by which a stack-based type is wrapped into a heap-based type so that it can be used in certain contexts: for instance, in Java ints cannot be used in containers so one has to box them in java.lang.Integer's. There's a weak connection with my proposal in that (at least in Java) these numeric wrappers are immutable and as such candidates for flyweighing techniques. Is this what you were referring to, perhaps?
Yep....again just brainstorming some possible names...
[One final question you didn't address: do you think this worth elaborating into a proposal for Boost?]
I think so, but I don't know that I'd have too much use personally. Jeff