Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart <at> sig.com> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I'm using the scope_guard from multi_index/detail/scope_guard.hpp.
It seems like a revision has made the destructor and copy-constructor protected instead of private. This is in some sense more
s/private/public/, I assume
idiomatic, but it breaks a use that I have in my upcomming auto_buffer class. Basically I'm only constructing a scope_guard object when I know the code can throw, otherwise I construct a "null" scope_guard which is simply an instance of scope_guard_impl_base.
Why not provide a "null" scope_guard as a first class citizen rather than simply exposing implementation details to enable this use case?
Yep, why can't you just define null guard as struct null_guard:boost::multi_index::detail::scope_guard_impl_base{}; Unrelated to your particular problem, is this auto_buffer class of yours part of Boost or a private project? If the former, we should think about moving scope_guard to boost/detail/ where implementation bits common to several libs inhabit. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo