Re: [boost] [scope_guard] New revision available + naming consideration

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-21 18:08:58

Ariel Badichi <abadichi_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> 
>> Another thought:
>> 
>>      g = 0;
>> 
>> it's easy to arrange that only a literal zero works there.
>
> How?

Allow assignment only from a private member pointer type.  It's
similar to the operator safe_bool idiom.

>> I don't love it, but maybe it will get your ideas flowing.
>> 
>
> Something like:
>
>      g = guard::inactive;
>      g = guard::active;
>
> or maybe
>
>      g = guard::dismissed;
>      g = !guard::dismissed;
>      (ugh)
>
> ?

No, the whole point of

    g = 0;

was to get you out of having to find a name for this thing.

> Overloading operators here may be a bit counter-intuitive.

Maybe so.  I have no strong opinion on the matter.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com