Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: [Formal review] Singleton library

From: Jason Hise (chaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-07 13:17:05

Pavel Antokolsky aka Zigmar wrote:

>On 5/7/05, Jason Hise <chaos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>  
>
>>What if I were to move the implementation details that require being
>>only defined once to source files, and by default have those source
>>files included by the headers.  Then if some macro is specified, I could
>>omit these inclusions and instead link to a separate dll that is a build
>>of these files.  Would this solve the problem?
>>    
>>
>
>I think it would solve the problem on windows. Although it must be
>stated clear enough in documentation, otherwise the user may run into
>a very unpleasant problems when porting from *nix where it worked with
>header-only implementation to windows - the code will compile and run,
>but not behave as expected - he will get multiple instances of
>singletons. Maybe even dll implementation should be even default on
>Windows - till user have not configured it differently.
>  
>
OK, I will add this to the singleton to-do list.  BTW, which macro 
should I check to see if the target operating system is windows?

-Jason