What's your convention for typedef'ing shared_ptr?

Question

I\'m flip-flopping between naming conventions for typedef\'ing the boost::shared_ptr template. For example:

typedef boost::shared_ptr FooPtr;
         


        

Answer 1

I have used both the outer and encapsulated typedef, but ended up with the first,

typedef boost::shared_ptr FooPtr; 

solely because in combined expressions this looks cleaner than Foo::Ptr.

Doesn't it bother you that Foo is now "aware" of how it will be passed around?

Often enough, these classes are creatable through a factory method only:

struct Foo
{
     static FooPtr Create() { return FooPtr(new Foo); }

   protected:
     Foo() {}
}

That's kind of "stronger" than encapsulating the typedef, yet a very common pattern.