From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-06 12:10:37
on 2/6/00 11:03 AM, Darin Adler at darin_at_[hidden] wrote:
> I think that the name "set_on_exit" gives the wrong emphasis.
> For similar reasons, I think that "auto_restore" is not such a good name
> either, despite what I said in my last message.
> I think of these objects as a way to safely set a variable to a value for a
> given scope. The fact that the variable is set back to the old value at the
> end of the scope is kind of a "detail of implementation", in a way.
but that's not what set_on_exit does. It ensures that when you leave a
scope, a variable has a particular value, not neccessarily the old value.
You know, I don't care that much what is decided. All I can say is that in
my experience, I've wanted to set a value on exit which is *not* the same as
the current value. I've also wanted to establish that a certain value will
be set on exit, but had no need to set a new value at the time that the exit
condition is established.
Maybe these are two separate, useful classes. I can definitely see the use
for auto_restore. It expresses something quite different, and though
arguably less flexible, possibly more generally useful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk