From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-27 18:17:58
Brian Gray wrote:
> On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 09:15 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Sam Partington" <Sam.Partington_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Could it not just be called shared. After all it is merely a more
>>> general
>>> term of shared_ptr. And the type of the resource kind of makes it
>>> implicit.
>>
>> std::auto_ptr is a non-shared resource manager.
>
> So then reverse resource_manager and get managed_resource<>, or just
> managed<>.
Why not just resource<>? Management is implied anyway; that's the reason
for the existence of the class.
-- Joel de Guzman joel at boost-consulting.com http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net