Re: [boost] [scope_guard] New revisionavailable + namingconsideration

From: Brian Ravnsgaard Riis (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-21 14:09:49

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 
> Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
> 
>>Rob Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>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();
>>
>>"Guard"? Somehow "Summon" doesn't read very well above. I'm sorta
>>partial to guard, but this may cause confusion with both the class
>>name and the namespace name?
>>
>>scope_guard g;
>>if(cond) g.dismiss();
>>...
>>if(cond2) g.guard();
>>
>>Just a thought...
> 
> 
> I agree the "guard" is better. But the variable type name is scope_guard, 
> many scope guard tools are resided in boost::guard namespace, the function 
> for creating guards is make_guard. Aren't there too much guards here?

Yes, probably. As I said, just a thought...

-- 
  /Brian Riis