"Caleb Epstein" <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:989aceac04100607466d2aa109@mail.gmail.com... | On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:36:17 +0300, Peter Dimov <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote: | > Howard Hinnant wrote: | > > On Oct 5, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Jonathan Turkanis wrote: | > > | > >> (I now like Howard Hinnant's suggested "unique_ptr", though he | > >> seems to be leaning toward "sole_ptr" now.) | > > | > > I am sooooooooo fickle! :-) | > | > FWIW, sole_ptr doesn't look very appealing to this non-native speaker. ;-) | > | > unique_ptr isn't much better but at least I can associate it with | > shared_ptr::unique(). | | Perhaps lone_ptr? what was wrong with move_ptr? The fact that there is only one owner does not need to be reflected in the name; many pointers are like that...scoped_ptr, auto_ptr. br Thorsten