labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43662#1016939, @vsk wrote:
> > What do you think about a syntax like:
> >
> > lldb_utility::CleanUp cleanup_our(::close, our_socket); // The CleanUp
> > constructor creates the std::function internally
>
> @labath I find the current version of the code more readable, since the
> behavior of the cleanup is apparent in less time. And I'd prefer to keep the
> CleanUp utility very small, without any scope for expansion. I don't think
> the ergonomics of the new syntax outweigh the advantages of a simpler
> approach.
I don't think this would complicate anything. It should literally be a matter
of replacing your constructor with:
template<typename F, typename... Args>
CleanUp(F &&f, Args &&..args)
: PerformCleanup(true), Clean(std::bind(std::forward<F>(f),
std::forward<Args>(args)...) {}
Although I can see how you may find the other usage syntax more understandable,
so I am not adamant about this...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43662
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
