why scope(success)?

[Derek Parnell]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 08:13:37 +1000, Sean Kelly <sean at f4.ca> wrote:

> Chris Miller wrote:
>>  This gives me an idea, how about if there was scope(none) that is just  
>> like a regular block, but doesn't create a new scope. This would be for  
>> when you only need to group statements but have no interest in a new  
>> scope.
>>  void foo()
>> {
>>    if(a) scope(none) { stuff(); scope(success) bar(); }
>>    baz();
>> }
>>  bar() would execute after baz();
>
> It's a nasty hack, but:
>
> if(!a) goto blah;
> scope(success) a.foo();
> blah:
> ...

And I guess this is just as nasty ...

    scope(success) if (a) a.foo();

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia