[boost] Re: yet another utility class

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-06 15:04:58

Greg Colvin <gcolvin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?
>

Wow, Greg! I think you've found a very good name for my original class. At
least your name reflects a usage of the class in way I wanted to achieve
with my lame 'temporary_value':

{
boost::scoped_value<bool> in_scope( disable_updates_, true );
// ..
}

But it doesn't fit to 'set_on_exit' semantics. May be we indeed need two
different classes with  good descriptive names?

-Alexy