Ned Konz <ned / bike-nomad.com> writes:

> Why are you passing the block to new() here? What if it doesn't take
> one?

It doesn't matter if it doesn't take one. However, it doesn't make
much sense to pass it, so you're right - that should go.

> 
> Also, what happens when there's an exception in new() after resource 
> acquisition? Would it make more sense to put the call to new() after the 
> begin?

Then that would be 'new's busines to tidy up. If 'new' throws an
exception, then I won't have an object reference to call 'close' on.


Dave