C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Some feedback on scope guards

From: Marcin Jaczewski <marcinjaczewski86_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 12:27:42 +0200
niedz., 16 kwi 2023 o 21:44 Ville Voutilainen via Std-Discussion
<std-discussion_at_[hidden]> napisaƂ(a):
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 22:41, Edward Catmur <ecatmur_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> >> If we have a solution that doesn't do that prevention
> >> >> and solves the coroutine problem, I'm all ears.
> >> > There's Andrey's solution, but the overhead is substantial.
> >>
> >> I don't quite follow how that overhead is avoidable just by wrecking
> >> the composability of these types, or at all.
> >
> >
> > To recap: the compiler knows when a destructor is being called by normal or exceptional scope exit. Since the compiler and library are written together, the former can pass that information to the facility by private ("magic") means. However, this may be trickier to implement if the destructor of another class intervenes.
> Right. The "good old" "let's have multiple destructors, and give them
> parameters that tell them who's who". That doesn't compose,
> so the conclusion is to desperately pretend that we don't need composition.
> Nothing good comes out of that.

Why are multiple destructors bad? Especially if they were handled like
`const` overloads.
Besides, if a new destructor is no-go, why not add a new operator that
simply is called before the destructor?
like `operator unwind()` that is called before a proper destructor is
used in case of unwind.

> >> Perhaps we should entertain a separate scope fail/success type that is
> >> coroutine-aware, and leave the TS ones
> >> without that overhead.
> This.
> --
> Std-Discussion mailing list
> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion

Received on 2023-04-17 10:27:55