From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-14 14:38:19
Jorge Lodos wrote:
>> as a "singleton" to solve the initialization order problem (the only
>> legitimate use of the "singleton pattern", in my opinion).
> Could you please elaborate? Why do you consider this is the only
> legitimate use for this pattern? Thanks in advance.
A singleton is simply a glorified wrapper over several global variables and
functions. There is little difference between
where the second Singleton is a namespace. The global variables don't become
any less "evil" when they are made members of a singleton class.
When a class represents an out-of-program entity that, by its nature, has a
single instance, this class can be flattened into functions.
This isn't black and white, of course; today's code may treat the video card
as a singleton, but tomorrow's computers may add multiple video card
support. In this case I still prefer something along the lines of
VideoCard & get_video_card( int id ); // noncopyable
or maybe even
video_card_ref get_video_card( int id ); // reference copy semantics
instead of the "multisingleton" way of
VideoCard::instance( id ).
But "true" singletons are either crippled ordinary classes or collections of
global functions (under the assumption that there are no initialization
order issues, of course).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk