[boost] Re: yet another utility class

From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-06 17:22:53

>> assigner
>> auto_assigner
>> safe_assigner
>>
>> value_changer
>> value_setter
>> auto_value_changer
>> auto_value_setter
>>
>> auto_changer
>> safe_changer

Dave Abrahams:
> All of these seem to put the emphasis in exactly the place you didn't like
> "set_on_exit" doing - the value being changed at the end of the scope.

My intent was that they put the emphasis on the value being changed at the
definition point. I intended that the restore at the end of the scope be
expressed by words like "auto" and "safe" ("scoped" seems even better).

    -- Darin