C++ Core Guidelines: finally in C++


To make my point clear, this post is about the exceptional case that you can not throw an exception. If your program runs in a restricted embedded environment or you have to fulfil a hard-real-time requirement, this situation may be not so exceptional to you.

 accident 994009 1280

Let's start with the exceptional environment in which you can't throw exceptions. My original plan was to write at least about the rules E.19 to E.27. But I get stuck at rule E.19.

E.19: Use a final_action object to express cleanup if no suitable resource handle is available

The first rule may surprise you because you never heard about final_action. Me too. Therefore I researched. During my research, I found an excellent post on this rule by Bartłomiej Filipek. Bartłomiej Filipek it the author of the well-known C++-blog: Bartek's coding blog. With his permission, I'm happy to incorporate his post Beautiful code: final_act from GSL into my post. Here we are.

Sometimes there’s a need to invoke a special action at the end of the scope: it could be a resource releasing code, flag set, code guard, begin/end function calls, etc. Recently, I’ve found a beautiful utility that helps in that cases.
Let’s meet gsl::final_act/finally.


Follow-up post here: link.

Imagine we have the following code:

void addExtraNodes();
void removeExtraNodes();

bool Scanner::scanNodes()
    // code...

    // code...
    return true;


We have a bunch of objects that scanNodes scans (global or shared container), but then we need to add some extra nodes to check. We want to preserve the initial container state, so at the end, we’re required to remove those additional nodes.

Of course, the design of the whole scan code could be much better so that we work on a copy of the container and adding or removing extra stuff would not be a problem. But there are places, especially in legacy code, where you work on some global container, and special care needs to be taken when changing it. A lot of bugs can happen when you modify a state, and someone expects a different state of the shared container.

My code seems to be working as expected… right? I call removeExtraNodes at the end of the function.

But what if there are multiple returns from scanNodes? It’s simple: we need to add multiple calls to removeExtraNodes. Ok….

What if there are some exceptions thrown? Then we also need to call our cleanup function before we throw…

So it appears we need to call removeExtraNodes not only before the last return!

Help needed

Let’s look at the C++ Core Guidelines. They suggest doing the following thing:

E.19: Use a final_action object to express cleanup if no suitable resource handle is available

The guideline says that we should strive for a better design, but still, it’s better than goto; exit approach, or doing nothing.

Ok… but what’s the solution here:

bool Scanner::scanNodes()
    // code...
    auto _ = finally([] { removeExtraNodes(); });

    // code...

    return true;


What happened here?

All I did was to wrap the call to removeExtraNodes a special object that will call a given callable object in its destructor. This is exactly what we need!

Where can we find that magical finally() code?

Just see Guideline Support Library/gsl_util.h.

Under the hood

The code is short, so I can even paste it here:


template <class F>
class final_act
    explicit final_act(F f) noexcept 
      : f_(std::move(f)), invoke_(true) {}

    final_act(final_act&& other) noexcept 
     : f_(std::move(other.f_)), 
        other.invoke_ = false;

    final_act(const final_act&) = delete;
    final_act& operator=(const final_act&) = delete;

    ~final_act() noexcept
        if (invoke_) f_();

    F f_;
    bool invoke_;


Isn’t that beautiful?!

The above class takes a callable object - f_ - and then it will call it when it’s about to be destroyed. So even if your code returns early or throws an exception your cleanup code is required to be invoked.

To work nicely with move semantics, there has to be an additional boolean parameter invoke_. This will guarantee that we won’t call the code for temporary objects. See this commit for more information if needed:
Final_act copy/move semantics is wrong

In C++17 we have Template argument deduction for class templates – that’s why you can also declare final_act object as:

final_act _f([] { removeExtraNodes(); })


Before C++17, we have to use the helper function finally to make our life easier:

template <class F>
inline final_act<F> finally(const F& f) noexcept
    return final_act<F>(f);

template <class F>
inline final_act<F> finally(F&& f) noexcept
    return final_act<F>(std::forward<F>(f));


So all in all, we can use finally() the function in the client code. Maybe that could change in C++17 as we’ll get Template argument deduction for class templates.

What’s nice about this code?

  • Clean, simple code
  • Expressive, no comments needed
  • Does one thing only
  • It’s generic, so works on anything that’s callable
  • Modern C++: so supports move semantics, noexcept,

Important note: final act should be noexcept

As explained many times through the comments in GSL repo (for example here), other issues, and from Final_act can lead to program termination if the final act throws an exception:

Final_act should be noexcept. It is conceptually just a handy way for the user to conjure up a destructor, and destructors should be noexcept. If something it invokes happens to throw, then the program will terminate.

In other words, you should write the code that will be called with the same assumptions as other destructor code… so don’t throw anything there. That might be a little limitation when you want to call some ‘normal’ code, not just some clean-up stuff (on the other hand might that would be a bad design after all?).

Where could be used?

Just to be clear: don’t use finally approach too often! With the proper design, your objects shouldn’t work in a global state and take benefit from RAII as much as possible. Still, there are situations where finally is nice to use:

  • transactions. That’s a general term for all of the actions that should be reverted when something fails. If you copied 95% of a file and got an error, you cannot leave such possibly corrupted file; you have to remove them and maybe start again. If you connected to a database and you want to write some records, you assume it’s atomic.
  • begin/end functions - where you’re required to call end after something started. As in our example.
  • flag setters. You have a shared flag, and you set it to a new state, but you have to reset it to the old state when you’re done.
  • resources without RAII support. The guideline shows an example with malloc/free. If you cannot wrap it in an RAII object (for example by using smart pointers and custom deleters), final_act might work.
  • safely closing the connection - as another example for resource clean-up in fact.

Do you see other places where final_act can help?

You can also look at this list: C++ List of ScopeGuard that appeared some time on Reddit (thread here)


Follow-up post here: link.

final_act/finally is a beautiful and well-designed tool that can help with the dirty job of cleaning stuff. In your code, you should go for a better approach to clean things/resources, but if that’s not possible final_act is a great solution.

Do you use similar classes to clean things in your code?

What's next?

if you can't throw an exception and can't use it finally, you have a problem. I will solve this issue in my next post.

Further information

Recently Bartłomiej Filipek published his first book C++17 in Detail. If you'd like to learn the new standard in an effective and practical way then you can check out the book here: https://leanpub.com/cpp17indetail. 

For Free: Four Vouchers for C++ in Detail

I'm happy to announce that Bartłomiej Filipek gave me four vouchers for his books. Read here the details to get them: For Free: Four Vouchers to Win




Thanks a lot to my Patreon Supporters: Matt Braun, Roman Postanciuc, Tobias Zindl, Marko, G Prvulovic, Reinhold Dröge, Abernitzke, Frank Grimm, Sakib, Broeserl, António Pina, Sergey Agafyin, Андрей Бурмистров, Jake, GS, Lawton Shoemake, Animus24, Jozo Leko, John Breland, espkk, Louis St-Amour, Venkat Nandam, Jose Francisco, Douglas Tinkham, Kuchlong Kuchlong, Robert Blanch, Truels Wissneth, Kris Kafka, Mario Luoni, Neil Wang, Friedrich Huber, lennonli, Pramod Tikare Muralidhara, Peter Ware, Tobi Heideman, Daniel Hufschläger, Red Trip, Alexander Schwarz, Tornike Porchxidze, Alessandro Pezzato, Evangelos Denaxas, Bob Perry, Satish Vangipuram, Andi Ireland, Richard Ohnemus, Michael Dunsky, Dimitrov Tsvetomir, Leo Goodstadt, Eduardo Velasquez, John Wiederhirn, Yacob Cohen-Arazi, Florian Tischler, Robin Furness, and Michael Young.


Thanks in particular to Jon Hess, Lakshman, Christian Wittenhorst, Sherhy Pyton, Dendi Suhubdy, Sudhakar Belagurusamy, Richard Sargeant, and Rusty Fleming.



My special thanks to Embarcadero CBUIDER STUDIO FINAL ICONS 1024 Small



I'm happy to give online seminars or face-to-face seminars worldwide. Please call me if you have any questions.

Bookable (Online)


Standard Seminars (English/German)

Here is a compilation of my standard seminars. These seminars are only meant to give you a first orientation.


Contact Me

Modernes C++,


My Newest E-Books

Course: Modern C++ Concurrency in Practice

Course: C++ Standard Library including C++14 & C++17

Course: Embedded Programming with Modern C++

Course: Generic Programming (Templates)

Course: C++ Fundamentals for Professionals

Interactive Course: The All-in-One Guide to C++20

Subscribe to the newsletter (+ pdf bundle)

Blog archive

Source Code


Today 624

Yesterday 7029

Week 40948

Month 107614

All 7375454

Currently are 142 guests and no members online

Kubik-Rubik Joomla! Extensions

Latest comments