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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 16:21:44

Jason Stewart <jstewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> However, maybe using the shared_ptr semantics would work. I.e. if you 
> can create a guard that is "uninitialized" and then reset it later to 
> an active guard.
>
> {
>          scope_guard g;
>
>          if (some condition)
>          {
>                  g = scope_guard(my_undo_function);
>                  // do something here
>          }
>
>          if (some other condition)
>          {
>                  // we changed our mind, dismiss it.
>                  g = scope_guard;
>
>                  // or ...
>                  // g.dismiss();
>                  // g.reset(); // like shared_ptr

reset() is wrong unless you mean the guard to immediately take it
would take upon destruction.  release() would be the correct smart
pointer analogy.

>          }
> }
>

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