From: John Torjo (john.groups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-17 07:58:24
[on behalf of Ingolf Steinbach]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Boost-announce] [review] Fast track review of
Boost.Utility/Singleton begins today
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:46:54 +0100
From: Ingolf Steinbach <ingolf.steinbach_at_[hidden]>
To: John Torjo <john.groups_at_[hidden]>
2008/1/14, John Torjo <john.groups_at_[hidden]>:
> * What is your evaluation of the design?
1. Shouldn't there be a protected d'tor in singleton in order to
reduce the chance of mis-use (deletion via pointer to singleton)?
2. Why does instance have pointer-like (rather than reference-like)
syntax? I know that GoF use pointers, but references typically make me
feel better than pointers (or something that looks like one) which
might be 0.
3. Is a private (or protected) my_singleton destructor supported
without 'verbose "template...friend-making"'?
> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I'd very much like to see this kind of library in boost. This one
> * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
> Did you have any problems?
No. N/A. N/A
> * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
A glance only due to lack of spare time. Sorry .
> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
A little: I have written some template based singleton code myself and
have read Andrei's MCPPD.
> * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
I'd like to see the above issues addressed in some way. Apart from
that, I have no objections.
-- http://John.Torjo.com -- C++ expert ... call me only if you want things done right
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk