From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-09 14:34:51
Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>> I haven't looked at the library, but I'd like to raise a minor
>> point. I think the name "shmem" is bad as it doesn't tell you what
>> the library is about - most Boost libraries have more descriptive
>> names. "Shmem" sounds to me like a letter of the Hebrew alphabet
>> rather than the name of a Boost library. Couldn't it be called
>> "shared_memory" or something similar instead?
>
> Suggestion are welcome. There are other libraries with Shmem name (for
> example, for programming multiprocessor shared memory issues), so I'm
> not the only one with bad taste ;-)
I prefer "shared_memory" as well, especially considering the recent threads
on this list and the user list discussing new boost users not being able to
easily/quickly finding what facilities are available. Had I not been
introduced to the name shmem at my current employer(it's even worse, we have
a shmipc library) I wouldn't have known what your library offered even
though I've been using memory mapped files under windows for quite some
time.
Jeff Flinn