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

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 12:42:48

>>> 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.

The more common use case is to create initially disabled guard and then, 
depending on some condition, activate it. I've had the need of such 
functionality several times.