18 Jul
2006
18 Jul
'06
2:17 p.m.
On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:29 AM, Kevin Spinar wrote:
Also, I'm still unsure of a name; clone_ptr is more recognizable but clone_obj is more accurate of a name.
I have a strong opinion that this should be named clone_obj. I think this work is interesting, and have been following it. However at the end of the day, (imho) we still need a simple, basic, clone_ptr, which has more in common with other smart pointers than this work has. Let's keep the name clone_ptr available for *that*, and name *this* work something else (clone_obj sounds good). -Howard