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

From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 10:37:03

"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:200509221407.j8ME7elF003986_at_shannonhoon.balstatdev.susq.com...
> From: Brian Ravnsgaard Riis <brian_at_[hidden]>
>> 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

[snip]

> When thinking of someone yelling, "Guard!" this fits pretty well,
> but it can just as easily be thought of as an accessor.  Still,
> one has to know what a scope_guard is to understand "dismiss" or
> "guard," so the name is still quite reasonable.
>
> What about "post?"  That is, you're "posting a guard."  You can
> post a guard after you dismiss him, by implicitly summoning him,
> of course.  In this case, the guard never went away, he was just
> told to ignore his charge by dismiss().  Thus, he needn't be
> summoned.
>
>   scope_guard g;
>   if (a) g.dismiss();
>   ...
>   if (b) g.post();
>
> Perhaps if the member function were named "guarding" and it took
> a bool, and you provided non-member functions dismiss() and
> post(), this might read better:
>
>   scope_guard g;
>   if (a) dismiss(g);
>   ...
>   if (b) post(g);

Carrying the analogy to the extreme:

   scope_guard g;

   if (a) at_ease(g);
   ...
   if (b) attention(g); // emphasizing the appropriate syllables!

:o)

Jeff