[boost] Re: yet another utility class

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-06 13:29:20

From: Stephen C. Gilardi <squeegee_at_[hidden]>
> 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

Which fits with scoped_ptr.  Perhaps just scoped_value would do?

> "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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple.  Click Here!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1155/1/_/9351/_/949860870/
> 
> -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=boost&m=1
> 
> 
>