From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-15 17:01:54
On 10/9/23 19:27, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 10/9/23 18:33, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> Source:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/Lastique/scope
>>>
>>> Docs:
>>>
>>> https://lastique.github.io/scope/libs/scope/doc/html/index.html
>>
>> Question:
[...]
>> Also, wouldn't it be better if scope_exit took a second parameter
>> C defaulting to "always" instead of having scope_check?
>
> Do you mean to effectively rename scope_check to scope_exit, and add a
> default predicate that always returns true?
>
> I suppose, it is possible, although currently scope_exit is a bit more
> lightweight than scope_check. The latter is more complicated because the
> implementation should be prepared for the failure condition predicate
> constructor to throw. Perhaps, that is a good idea, if that extra
> overhead is not considered as a problem.
I have now merged scope_check into scope_exit, as you suggested. There
is already a lightweight scope_final guard, so making scope_exit more
feature-rich seemed like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
Also, for anyone interested, I have created a single-header version of
the library that is compatible with godbolt.org:
https://godbolt.org/z/6rvhnTrvn
Feel free to try it online.
PS: The single-header version is not part of the library, as proposed
for inclusion into Boost. It's just to simplify the review process.