Re: [boost] singleton_ptr

From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-19 12:02:46

"Jason Hise" wrote:

[ policies ]
> Granted, defining a category like so is a bit more work, but client code
> can completely ignore policies that it doesn't care about, and reuse
> useful categories that it has defined for multiple different singleton
> types.
>
If the function destroy() would be renamed to
    ensure_resource_is_freed()
or so no "on-double-destroy" policy may be needed.

Such name would also give hint about expected result
rather than about internal implementation.

---------------
About macros: one should keep  them out
when possible.

If the library will (in the future) handle "application-wide-singletons"
(a type would be singletonn even if put in static library
linked into a DLL that is manually loaded in an EXE)
then some macros will be (likely) necessary.

/Pavel