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

class foo;

typedef boost::shared_ptr<foo> foo_p;
typedef boost::weak_ptr<foo> foo_wp;

Answer 2

typedef boost::shared_ptr<MyClass> MyClass$;

Answer 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_ptrs). I also don't much care for abbreviations, but that's another matter altogether.

Answer 4

I would get rid of the namespace instead of shortening the type.

using boost::shared_ptr; // or using std::shared_ptr, 
struct Foo
{
    shared_ptr<Foo> impl;
};

Which has the bonus that you can change between implementations easily.

If that is still too long (I think it is just right):

using boost::shared_ptr;
template<class T> using sptr = shared_ptr<T>;
struct Foo
{
    sptr<Foo> impl;
};