Feedback and comments on ARM proposal

[Neal Gafter]

On the one hand, you say

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:
> The proposed construct *was*  designed to go beyond IO-related "Closeable"
> resources.  ...  I sincerely hope the construct works for the great
> majority of block-structured resources, whether or not their
> close/dispose/release/whatever method is defined to throw an exception.

And then...

> At this point, I think only one name will be supported (close), so the
> problem goes away.

You've avoided one problem by narrowing the applicability of the
construct.  Given your hopes (above), that is quite a drawback.