What's your convention for typedef'ing shared_ptr?
Solution 1:
I'd like too add some options to this old question, even though they might be highly controversial…
Similar to OldPeculier's answer I like short type names that resemble standard pointers as closely as possible.
In a project that used shared_pointer
almost everywhere, I used
typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> Foo_;
// usage examples:
Foo* myFoo0;
Foo_ myFoo1;
I took advantage of three things:
- That the underscore character somehow looks like an operator, yet is treated mostly like a letter, so that it can be part of an identifier (and I see no rule forbidding it at the end of the identifier).
- That I only needed to come up with one typedef.
- I prefer
Foo* myFoo1;
overFoo *myFoo1;
for several reasons, and it matches nicely withFoo_ myFoo2
.
When in need of typedefs for different kinds of smart pointers, I'd go for
typedef shared_ptr<Foo> Foo_S;
typedef weak_ptr<Foo> Foo_W;
typedef unique_ptr<Foo> Foo_U;
// usage examples:
Foo* myFoo2;
Foo_S myFoo3;
Foo_W myFoo4;
Foo_U myFoo5;
With increasing Unicode support in the standards and compiler implementations, I'd be tempted to try the following syntax, assuming that those star characters would be treated as a regular part of the type identifier. Of course this is only practical if all involved developers have a convenient text input method for this:
typedef shared_ptr<Foo> Foo★;
typedef weak_ptr<Foo> Foo☆;
typedef unique_ptr<Foo> Foo✪;
// usage examples:
Foo* myFoo6;
Foo★ myFoo7;
Foo☆ myFoo8;
Foo✪ myFoo9;
(A quick test indicated that this does not actually work, at least with my build environment. But the same is true for Foo_ä
.)
Solution 2:
Answer: don't do it. It's convenient for you and nobody else. Say what you mean.
Solution 3:
My preference:
class Foo
{
public:
typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> SharedPointer;
};
The problem with just FooPtr
is that you may have different types of pointers (e.g., weak_ptr
s). I also don't much care for abbreviations, but that's another matter altogether.