[boost] Re: yet another utility class

From: Reggie Seagraves (reggie_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-07 12:59:29

Ladies and Germs,

        scoped_XXX is what we use in some of our internal libraries already...
....
        i.e. I think scoped_ is the 'right' prefix to use to name this puppy.
                Thanks,
                        Reggie

At 11:26 PM -0500 2/6/00, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote:
>>  > 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
>>  >
>>     Both of these suggest to me that we are setting the value of the
>>variable to true for the CURRENT scope or block, and that the original value
>>will be restored once the block is exited.  This is the exact opposite of
>>what the class actually does.  This is why I prefer set_value_on_exit.  It
>>makes it clear exactly when the variable takes on the value.
>
>The impression you got from the names is exactly the impression I was
>trying to convey.  I believe we're talking about two different
>classes which are probably both useful.  The one I'm talking about
>sets the value on construction and restores the previous value on
>destruction.  It's StValueChanger<T> in PowerPlant.
>
>"scoped_value" seems good to me too.
>
>--Steve
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
>-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=boost&m=1