"Rob Stewart" <stewart@sig.com> wrote in message news:200509221407.j8ME7elF003986@shannonhoon.balstatdev.susq.com...
From: Brian Ravnsgaard Riis <brian@riis.as>
Andrey Semashev wrote:
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
Rob Stewart wrote:
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();
"Guard"? Somehow "Summon" doesn't read very well above. I'm sorta
[snip]
When thinking of someone yelling, "Guard!" this fits pretty well, but it can just as easily be thought of as an accessor. Still, one has to know what a scope_guard is to understand "dismiss" or "guard," so the name is still quite reasonable.
What about "post?" That is, you're "posting a guard." You can post a guard after you dismiss him, by implicitly summoning him, of course. In this case, the guard never went away, he was just told to ignore his charge by dismiss(). Thus, he needn't be summoned.
scope_guard g; if (a) g.dismiss(); ... if (b) g.post();
Perhaps if the member function were named "guarding" and it took a bool, and you provided non-member functions dismiss() and post(), this might read better:
scope_guard g; if (a) dismiss(g); ... if (b) post(g);
Carrying the analogy to the extreme: scope_guard g; if (a) at_ease(g); ... if (b) attention(g); // emphasizing the appropriate syllables! :o) Jeff