Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Potential Design Issues to re-evaluate from TR #9

Open
JeffGarland opened this issue Feb 7, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

Potential Design Issues to re-evaluate from TR #9

JeffGarland opened this issue Feb 7, 2025 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@JeffGarland
Copy link
Member

constexpr all the things

Probably all the methods should be constexpr

is scope_guard exposition only or not

Maybe this should actually be part of the user api instead of hidden?

boost divergence

There's some differences in implementation there (cant remember details without looking at review) - is there something new and valuable there?

@JeffGarland JeffGarland self-assigned this Feb 7, 2025
@robert-andrzejuk
Copy link
Collaborator

robert-andrzejuk commented Feb 14, 2025

Don't pay, for what you don't use - should the release method be by default in the scope_guard class? Maybe it should be a mixin?

@robert-andrzejuk
Copy link
Collaborator

scope_fail and scope_success both require to use the header <exception> (for std::uncaught_exceptions()).
Should <scope> be reliant on this header?

@JeffGarland
Copy link
Member Author

  • exception header

Since scope if fundamentally about dealing with exceptions I think that is a requirement.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants