The future of the name "ref"

[David Abrahams]

I really want to get rid of this name by its current meaning. One reason is
that "ref" already means something very different in namespace boost: it
generates a reference wrapper for its argument for use with the bind and
function libraries. I expect that Boost.Python users will want to use
boost::ref() for this purpose, since in the new system we traffic much more
heavily in function objects.

Another reason is that the generalized "reference<>" smart pointer template
is almost never instantiated with anything other than PyObject as its
template parameter (ref is just a typedef for reference<PyObject>), and
"reference" would be a far superior name for what we're currently calling
"ref".

I realize that this would be a change that breaks backward-compatibility,
but now is the time to do that, since the new standard-conformant system
will neccessarily break backward-compatibility for some users. I'd like to
hear if there are any serious objections or modifications to the idea.

Thanks,
Dave


===================================================
  David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
 resume: http://users.rcn.com/abrahams/resume.html

        C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
          email: david.abrahams at rcn.com
===================================================