why scope(success)?

[Sean Kelly]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> 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();

Preferable so long as the state of a is maintained until scope exit. 
But all of this smacks as an attempt to use the scope feature in a 
manner that wasn't intended.


Sean