Re: [boost] [scope_guard] New revision available + namingconsideration

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 12:45:11

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

I don't really think that smart pointers analogies are applicable in the 
first place. The guard is not a pointer, so let's not confuse users with 
such parallels.