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

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 12:38:58

> 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
>         }
> }
>
> 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.

Since in current implementation scope_guard is a typedefed reference the 
example above will not work. Besides, I don't really like the idea to create 
the whole object just to change the status. In addition, the code 
readability suffers.