Re: [flyweight] Review period extended to February 3

"Joaquín Mª López Muñoz" wrotes
"vicente.botet" ha escrito:

[snip]

> > In addition, I'd replace static_holder by intramodule_holder.
> > intramodule_holder reflects much more the accessibility intent for the
> > users, static_holder talks more about  the implementation.
>
> Do you mean that intermodule_holder should be the default rather
> than static_holder? There are reasons not to do that, as I explained
> to John Reid at:
>
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/01/132814.php

Non, this was only a renaming sugestion.
NOT INTERmodule_holder BUT  INTRAmodule_holder.

I'd RENAME static_holder by intramodule_holder.
intramodule_holder reflects much more the accessibility intent for the
users, static_holder talks more about  the implementation.

So at the end there will be two holders:
. intramodule_holder (renaming of static_holder) and
. intermodule_holder

Regards
---------------------------
Vicente Juan Botet Escriba 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost