From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-09 12:24:51
Kim Barrett <kab <at> irobot.com> writes:
> First, I really like this proposal, and think it should be accepted
> into Boost.
> I imagine some people might think that having the transaction cleanup
> actions next to the start of the transaction clutters the main line of
> execution code with "exception handling" code. However, as a long-time
> user of various programming languages with "finally" style cleanup
> actions after a protected body (various Lisp dialects, Java, Python),
> I've often found that having the cleanup action far removed from what
> is to be cleaned up makes it difficult to ensure during maintenance
> that the cleanup actions are always being updated appropriately.
I totally agree with you.
> My only (mild) quibble is the decision to use a PP sequence for the
> arguments. I might prefer that this library be forward looking and
> assume variadic macros, with backward compatibility variants that use
> the PP sequence technique for use by those who need to support
> compilers that don't support variadic macros.
How would you implement dispatching if there is only one argument? E.g.
BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT(i) vs. BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT( (i) ).
AFAIK, there is no equivalent to mpl::is_sequence in PP.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk