Hi Lorenzo,
Lorenzo Caminiti wrote : I have decided to provide a single block macro `BOOST_LOCAL_BLOCK` which allows to bind both const and non const so the users can decide which bound variables need to be cons within the block and which do not. If you want a pure const-block then you'll simply bind all variable as `const&`. Blocks of course execute in-place right where they are defined. I have also kept the block break feature via the macro `BOOST_LOCAL_BLOCK_BREAK` (you get a compiler error if you just try to use `return`).
I would have prefered to see the FUNCTION + 'return' personnally. But, I think I get your point : local unnamed macro function can be generated easily from your local named function. I made some tests to check and this seems ok for me, as long as several local classes can share the same name in a function. Here is an example of what I mean : void TestDoubleLocalFunc::aFunction(void) { { class unnamed { public: int that; } something; something.that = 1; } { class unnamed { public: std::string those; } something; something.those = ""; } } This use 2 local classes with the same name. It did compile under VS2008, however is it tolerated in C++ standard ? If not, I would prefer that you provide an unnamed local function macro which does not require the user to write once more the name of the function in LOCAL_FUNCTION_END(nameOfTheFunction). This is doable (see the first code I sent you), and would allow to write the name of the function only once, and not require it several times as in your actual LOCAL_FUNCTION macros. Best, Pierre