Re: [scope] Scope review starts on November 26th

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-30 20:42:49

On 11/30/23 12:34, Дмитрий Архипов via Boost wrote:
> One thing I've noticed is that several people do not think that scope
> guards and unique_resource belong in the same library. I at first
> found it curious, but then I've realised that the source of the issue
> is that people associate the name "Scope" with scope guards
> specifically.

It's not unreasonable. I also feel that it is unfortunate that the TS
defined unique_resource and scope guards in the same <scope> header. I
think, unique_resource should have been defined in a header of its own.
But then I also think that most standard library headers are excessively
coarse grained. Boost.Scope mitigates this to a degree by defining every
component in its own header, so at least users don't include what they
don't need.

Anyway, the reason why I'm bringing scope guards together with
unique_resource in one library is because it is specified so in the TS.
If the review result shows that the library should be split in two, I
will be fine with that.

> Maybe there's an argument for a different name?

If the problem is that scope guards and unique_resource are too
unrelated, I don't think renaming the library solves it. And I wouldn't
like naming the library somehow generic, like Boost.RAII, as was
suggested by someone. I like the Boost.Scope name, at least with respect
to scope guards part.

If the library as currently proposed is deemed unacceptable because
scope guards and unique_resource are too unrelated, and the choice is
either rename or split in two, I would rather split and keep the
Boost.Scope name for the part with scope guards.