4 ms·
Although somewhat amusing, I'm assuming there's more to 'MemoryHolder' than just an inappropriate name. What was wrong about it at the type level that illustrat
by giantDinosaur 7y ago
Although somewhat amusing, I'm assuming there's more to 'MemoryHolder' than just an inappropriate name. What was wrong about it at the type level that illustrates your point? Or do you mean to say that it's (somehow) illustrative of a lack of conceptual understanding?
- kqr 7y agoI'm curious about the same thing. With my Ada background, I see a completely sensible interpretation of MemoryHolder: A Holder type is a managed (RAII/garbage collected) wrapper that has a reference to some unmanaged/primitive object. If that primitive object is some notion of a contiguous region of memory, then MemoryHolder is a perfectly good name for it. A name like "Buffer" might not automatically tell the users that the type is managed, or that it wraps some underlying primitive type. That may or may not be relevant to the user, but it's not obviously always irrelevant, at least.
- W0lf 7y agoThank you for this insight. I wasn't aware that this was a reasonable name when coming from Ada.