From: "Andrey Semashev" <andysem@mail.ru>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Andrey Semashev" <andysem@mail.ru>
I've not looked at anything else, but I thought I'd address these:
- The naming of arm/disarm methods of scope guard. They are used to change the activity status of the guard. Personally, I feel fine with them but the commonly used name for disabling the guard is "dismiss" and I just can't figure out its suitable counterpart in English. I wonder if anyone have a proposal about this.
"Dismiss" would be the right word in English to tell the guard to go away and do nothing more.
Yes but what about its antipod - a function to enable the guard? Note that the guard may even be initially disabled (that's another reason I didn't like dismiss) and then it may be enabled in some place.
I see. I thought you somehow knew of "dismiss" in another language and didn't know the English word for it. I think Markus is right: summon is the opposite of dismiss for a guard. The question is whether it reads well when used: guard g; if (something) g.dismiss(); ... if (whatever) g.summon();
- The naming of the function make_guarded_call (in previous version it was make_transaction) is what I'm not sure of. This function in addition to a scope_guard creation calls some another functor. The semantic is grouping the "do" and "undo" actions in the user code. Does anyone have a better name?
How about "call_guarded" or "invoke_guarded?"
That might do. But doesn't the common make_ prefix mean that something (a guard in this case) should be created?
I took your question to mean that you were naming a function template that created a guard, called a function (object), and then destroyed the guard. Now it sounds as though you're creating a function object that does that and you want to name the function template that creates the function object. In that case, "make_guarded_caller" sounds about right. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;