Re: [boost] [Boost.utility]

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.utility]
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-25 14:34:59

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:25:51PM +0300, Andrew Chinkoff wrote:
> Singleton.hpp have just corrected.

There have been many suggestions in the past of singleton
implementations to this list, all flawed in subtle and not so subtle
ways. I strongly recommend finding those and the feedback on them and
understand them.

Your code suffers from among other things.
* You do not follow the boost naming_convention.
* You use reserved identifiers in several places
  - __SINGLETON_HPP__,
  - ___DOOMED_SINGLETON_MUST_NOT_BE_ARRAY___).
* Your SINGLETON_IS_MY_FRIEND macro lacks the BOOST_ prefix and could
  likely be worded better.
* Your implementation is rigid and does not have any policies to
* indicate whether thread-safety is required, etc.
* I'm sure that your CTAssert concept can be replaced by the proper
  existing Boost implementation of such a compile-time assertion.
* Your implementation is limited to types with nullary constructors.

Again, I recommend researching why the previous ambitious attempts have
not been universally accepted.

-- 
Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden] | 070-310 47 07