why scope(success)?

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Regan Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2006 22:36:03 -0400, Ben Hinkle <ben.hinkle at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Maybe... self documenting functions, listing all return values at 
>>> the  top?
>>>
>>> int foobar( ..etc.. )
>>> {
>>>   scope(success) return 1;
>>>   scope(failure) return 0;
>>>
>>> }
>>
>>
>> Does scope(failure) continue unwinding the stack? I wonder what the  
>> behavior
>> is of returning from a scope(failure).
> 
> 
> Good question. No idea. :(
> 
>> I believe writing "scope(success) foo;" followed by the end of the  
>> current scope is equivalent to just writing "foo;". Maybe I'm  
>> misunderstanding the example.
> 
> 
> You're right. For some reason I got it in my head that scope(success)  
> happened when the function itself returned, as opposed to the current  
> scope closing.
> 
> So, what about in this case:
> 
> int foobar( ..etc ..)
> {
>   if (a) scope(success) a.foo();
>   //A: immediately after if
> }
> //B: at function return
> 
> when does a.foo() get executed? at A or B? I get the impression it's A.
> 
> Regan

Evidence from testing is that a.foo() is executed at point A.  Which I think is a shame, 
really.  It limits the usefulness of the scope() statement, which I feel is otherwise full 
of potential.  Maybe its a little silly to say aloud, but certain statements just 
shouldn't "be a scope" for the sake of the scope() statement.  Maybe different scopes 
should have "weights" or something... I don't know how it should be done, just that it 
should, or else a way created to say which scope you are anchoring on, but what on earth 
would the syntax be?

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls