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

From: Jason Stewart (jstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 15:46:20

> >It seems to me that is as easy to read as having an explicit "guard"
> >or "activate" command is. I confess though that I didn't follow the
> >early discussion closely so I apologize is this has been discussed already.
>
>I don't think this will work well, because the guard could be fairly
>complex. I'd hate to have several identical multi-line guard statements
>in one function.

I had not thought of that because it never occurred to me that one 
would create a guard, dismiss it, then reactivate it. Would people 
really reactivate it that often after dismissing it?

I was thinking more of the case where you do not know when you create 
the guard whether or not you will need to activate it.

Jason Stewart