Re: [boost] ScopeExit review
I agree with Steven, This syntax looks same as the new Boost.Parameter syntax, and this is good for the Boost as a whole. Thanks, Maxim 23.08.07, 20:03, Steven Watanabe:
I prefer BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT((cref c)(ref r)(val v)) for two reasons. 1) It makes it clear that they are /not/ function calls 2) It's slightly easier to implement because you can use BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH. In Christ, Steven Watanabe
Yanchenko Maxim <maximyanchenko <at> yandex.ru> writes:
I agree with Steven,
This syntax looks same as the new Boost.Parameter syntax, and this is good for the Boost as a whole.
23.08.07, 20:03, Steven Watanabe:
I prefer BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT((cref c)(ref r)(val v)) for two reasons. 1) It makes it clear that they are /not/ function calls 2) It's slightly easier to implement because you can use BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH.
OK BTW, we could omit val in (cref c)(ref r)(val v) without any bad consequences for ScopeExit but doing this could make this syntax inconsistent with LocalFunction where passing by reference may lead to dangling references. -- Alexander
participants (2)
-
Alexander Nasonov -
Yanchenko Maxim