> arguably, the C++ equivalent is just the destructor
You'd have to define an empty class with a destructor, then instantiate the class at the appropriate place in your code. The point of Boost.ScopeExit is to handle that boilerplate for you.
> I'm not sure if I see the advantage over widely understood first-class language features
The advantage is simply reduced boilerplate. You're right that it's 'less standard' and more likely to baffle the reader, if they're not already familiar with ScopeExit.
> consider using std::unique_ptr with a custom deleter -- this construct is for managing resources in a general sense, not necessarily just memory allocation
This strikes me as hijacking a memory-management facility, using it for a different purpose than its intent. That's bad for readability. I'd prefer either ScopeExit or the dummy object pattern I described.
You'd have to define an empty class with a destructor, then instantiate the class at the appropriate place in your code. The point of Boost.ScopeExit is to handle that boilerplate for you.
> I'm not sure if I see the advantage over widely understood first-class language features
The advantage is simply reduced boilerplate. You're right that it's 'less standard' and more likely to baffle the reader, if they're not already familiar with ScopeExit.
> consider using std::unique_ptr with a custom deleter -- this construct is for managing resources in a general sense, not necessarily just memory allocation
This strikes me as hijacking a memory-management facility, using it for a different purpose than its intent. That's bad for readability. I'd prefer either ScopeExit or the dummy object pattern I described.