Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed new RAII Library
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-15 03:53:36

On Saturday 15 September 2012 01:13:51 Andrew Sandoval wrote:
> Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev <at>> writes:
> > The probability of exception doesn't matter. Scope guards (or
> > RAIIFunction)
> > are typically used to implement exception safety, so introducing the
> > possibility of exception from the scope guard itself sort of defeats its
> > purpose. At the very least, it will complicate usage - probably, more than
> > it will simplify one. IMHO, this tool should not be based on
> > boost/std::function.
> I knew someone would say that about the possibility of exceptions. Again, I
> would argue that the other class doesn't have that problem and is a better
> fit for most things, but I don't see anyway your going to get
> std::tr1::function functionality without allocations and the risk of an
> exception -- unless it is implemented so that an exception can't be thrown.

There are several alternatives to std::function. One has been pointed out in
this thread several times - capture the scope guard by reference to base. This
is my preferred solution.

I can also suggest another option: use fixed sized buffer to place the
function object on the stack. The size of the buffer can be specified as a
template parameter of the scope guard. This gives you runtime flexibility
(which I don't think is necessary) but it makes the code less portable. I
personally don't like it, unless you can provide a motivating example where
initialization of an already constructed scope guard is required.

> I disagree completely about it defeating the purpose. You can find
> something less than perfect in just about every library, but that doesn't
> mean they aren't tremendously useful.

It's not just imperfection. It simply disables the main use case of the tool,
unless you close your eyes an put a comment "I feel lucky" before the scope

If your function-based scope guard is not intended to be used for exception
safety then define its purpose. And don't call it RAII because it can't be
used for resource management.

> Again though, a collection of RAII wrapper classes is what I'm proposing.
> And the great thing about having them in Boost, besides the fact that I
> don't have to re-write them over and over, is that all of the caveats can
> be well documented, as they are in other libraries.
> Are we making any progress here? I don't think I'm alone in seeing the
> value of RAII classes and promoting the practice.

I'm not arguing with that.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at