From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-21 13:28:49
Rob Stewart wrote:
>>>> - The naming of arm/disarm methods of scope guard. They are used to
>>>> change the activity status of the guard. Personally, I feel fine
>>>> with them but the commonly used name for disabling the guard is
>>>> "dismiss" and I just can't figure out its suitable counterpart in
>>>> English. I wonder if anyone have a proposal about this.
>>> "Dismiss" would be the right word in English to tell the guard to
>>> go away and do nothing more.
>> Yes but what about its antipod - a function to enable the guard?
>> Note that the guard may even be initially disabled (that's another
>> reason I didn't like dismiss) and then it may be enabled in some
> I see. I thought you somehow knew of "dismiss" in another
> language and didn't know the English word for it.
> I think Markus is right: summon is the opposite of dismiss for a
> guard. The question is whether it reads well when used:
> guard g;
> if (something) g.dismiss();
> if (whatever) g.summon();
Well, as for me the "summon" name doesn't look very good. It looks like
something should come from the "other side" :). The Brian's proposal
("guard") looks better but intersects with the class name itself. Maybe some
>>>> - The naming of the function make_guarded_call (in previous version
>>>> it was make_transaction) is what I'm not sure of. This function in
>>>> addition to a scope_guard creation calls some another functor. The
>>>> semantic is grouping the "do" and "undo" actions in the user code.
>>>> Does anyone have a better name?
>>> How about "call_guarded" or "invoke_guarded?"
>> That might do. But doesn't the common make_ prefix mean that
>> something (a guard in this case) should be created?
> I took your question to mean that you were naming a function
> template that created a guard, called a function (object), and
> then destroyed the guard. Now it sounds as though you're
> creating a function object that does that and you want to name
> the function template that creates the function object. In that
> case, "make_guarded_caller" sounds about right.
I'm sorry if I made myself not clear enough. The function is supposed to do
- Take two function objects
- Execute the first one immediately
- Create a guard object that will call the second functor on destruction
- Return the guard (user may bind it to a reference, which is typedefed to
So from the user's point of view the function executes the "do" action and
returns a guard to perform "undo" action. This looks like some kind of
transaction - the action shall be rolled back unless everything is ok and
the result is committed (read: the guard is disarmed).
The word "transaction" though is what I'd like to avoid. It is too wide
spread an has to do with databases which is not the case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk