Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.utility]
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-26 10:14:34
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> Andrew Chinkoff wrote:
> >> Perhaps some boost::global<T> utility would be better, but a singleton
> >> itself is bad practice, in my opinion. boost::global<T> would merely
> >> create
> >> a global access point to T:
> >> typedef boost::global<int> global_Int;
> >> global_int.get() = 5; // getting the global int
> > Perhaps you're right. It is a matter of taste.
> > But I like to write "Object::Instance().get()" rather than
> > "global_object.get()".
> One requires creating a new tailored object, the other adapts itself to
> any object un-intrusively.
> So it's pretty obvious global<int>.get() is better, and not just a
> matter of taste.
One of the motivations for the singleton pattern is making it impossible to
instantiate more than one instance of the class, which something which is
unintrusive cannot accomplish. Maybe I'm missing something however, as I
don't see the point of boost::global<T> at all?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk