DMD 0.148 - scope guard
Georg Wrede
georg.wrede at nospam.org
Tue Feb 28 16:47:17 PST 2006
Chris Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:16:38 -0500, Dawid Ciężarkiewicz
> <dawid.ciezarkiewicz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris Miller wrote:
>>
>>> This format looks good to me:
>>>
>>> scope(exit) foo();
>>> scope(success) bar();
>>> scope(failure) baz();
This gets my vote too.
And then it would look natural, if you ever need more than one function run:
scope(failure) foo();
scope(success) { bar(); haveAParty(); writeHome(); }
scope(exit) yawn();
>> Yeap. It's nice. Maybe s/success/pass/ s/failure/fail/ would even
>> improve it
>> a little.
>
> Good one.
That's kind of neat, too. Having all three alternatives with same number
of characters, makes it tidy:
scope(exit) foo();
scope(pass) bar();
scope(fail) baz();
Except of course, that "pass" might look like "skip" to somebody new to D.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list