I wouldn’t use std::bind though, just make a lambda. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:06 PM Pavel Labath via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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
