Re: [boost] call_once on win32

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-08 05:20:38

John Maddock wrote:
[...]
> Me neither, and I still don't see what having a return value really gains us
> in this case (I would much rather be able to pass parameters to the
> call_once procedure, but that's a whole other ball game).

Both are useful.

> 
> If a return value is truly required, then we could use aligned_storage to
> provide raw storage for the return value and construct the object on first
> call to the one procedure, but that still doesn't solve the destruction
> problem.

That's not your problem as long as you don't destruct and instead 
provide _reset/destroy/init() calls.

regards,
alexander.