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

From: Jason Stewart (jstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 15:08:56

>You're missing the usage of wanting to keep the original undo
>behavior, ignore it in some portion of the code, and then
>reinstate it later.  With the above, it appears that would entail
>this sort of usage:
>
>    scope_guard g(my_undo_function);
>    ...
>    g = scope_guard();
>    ...
>    g = scope_guard(my_undo_function);
>    ...
>
>That introduces a maintenance problem.  With the names we're
>discussing, you'd write this instead:
>
>    scope_guard g(my_undo_function);
>    ...
>    g.dismiss(); // or whatever name is selected
>    ...
>    g.protect(); // or whatever name is selected
>    ...

Ok, I can see that. I like the latest suggestion of dismiss/protect. 
abandon might be another possiblity for dismiss and seems to go with protect.

Jason Stewart