[boost] Re: yet another utility class

From: Stephen C. Gilardi (squeegee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-06 13:13:19

Perhaps names more inline with the intention of temporarily setting a 
value and being assured that it will be restored at the end of the 
block would be"

"scoped_push_value" or
"block_push_value"

We are treating this like a temporary push to the top of a "stack" of 
values for the given variable.

How does this sound for readability:

{
     block_push_value push(mDisableUpdates, true);
     block_push_value push2(mEnableLogging, true);
}

--Steve

>More name suggestions:
>
>     assigner
>     auto_assigner
>     safe_assigner
>
>     value_changer
>     value_setter
>     auto_value_changer
>     auto_value_setter
>
>     auto_changer
>     safe_changer
>
>     -- Darin