Re: [boost] Re: Singleton Review: GCC compiler errors

From: Jason Hise (chaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-09 15:28:19

Tobias Schwinger wrote:

> Jason Hise wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, a pure virtual function is the only way to automatically make 
>> any derived classes un-instantiable.
>
> Have you considered a protected (or even private if you want complete 
> uninstantiability) constructor?

This will not automatically make derived classes uninstantiable.  Client 
code should not be forced to provide a protected constructor if they 
wouldn't naturally need one... the uninstantiability, if that's a word, 
should be inherited automatically.  A protected constructor would allow 
a public client default constructor to be generated automatically.

Rob Stewart wrote:

>Nope.  The derived class dtor would be virtual
>automatically. (12.4/7)
>
In that case I'll apply the changes and get the new version online as 
soon as possible.

-Jason