2 Feb 11:07
Re: [flyweight] Review period extended to February 3
From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z <joaquin <at> tid.es>
Subject: Re: [flyweight] Review period extended to February 3
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Date: 2008-02-02 10:07:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [flyweight] Review period extended to February 3
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Date: 2008-02-02 10:07:28 GMT
----- Mensaje original ----- De: "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet <at> wanadoo.fr> Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 2, 2008 0:24 am Asunto: Re: [boost] [flyweight] Review period extended to February 3 Para: boost <at> lists.boost.org > Hello Steven, > >"Steven Watanabe" wrotes > >> vicente.botet wrote: > >>> So at the end there will be two holders: > >>> . intramodule_holder (renaming of static_holder) and > >>> . intermodule_holder > >> > >> Those names are much too similar. > > You are right. > Maybe module_holder and process_holder? I don't see any problem with static_holder, but if we don't want to stress the internal mechanism on which it is based maybe we can name it simple_holder, so we'd have simple_holder and intermodule_holder? Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RSS Feed