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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk