On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Joseph Thomson via Boost
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Gavin Lambert via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 10/02/2017 12:24, Joseph Thomson via Boost wrote:
I initially read that as `caged_ptr`. I looked up the definition, and it does seem to have the right meaning. If such an uncommon word is undesirable, perhaps `obseved_ptr` or `watched_ptr` would be preferable (the "-ed" form of the veb matches `shared_ptr`).
At the risk of devolving into a bikeshed, I don't really like anything that implies observing or watching unless it has the semantics of weak_ptr and knows when it is no longer pointing to a valid object.
How about borrowed_ptr, unbound_ptr, irresponsible_ptr, unowned_ptr, or not_null_ptr? (Though a shorter typedef probably should be encouraged in practice or people would likely just stick with *.)
A previous name I used was `indirect`, to give it an air of pointer-ness without using the terms "pointer" or "reference" (though it doesn't have a `_ptr` suffix). If we're being creative, the name could emphasise how the pointee is liable to die before the pointer itself.
volatile_ptr
volatile int * ptr; // a volatile pointer Rule 5 about naming - avoid "spoken ambiguity" - If I say to another dev "you need to use a volatile pointer here" did I mean volatile_ptr or volatile Foo * ?
transient_ptr
I kinda like that one.
mercurial_ptr unsafe_ptr unstable_ptr
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost