why scope(success)?

[Chris Miller]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 00:39:30 -0400, Regan Heath <regan at netwin.co.nz> wrote:

> 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

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();

- Chris