Re: [boost] [Boost.utility]

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.utility]
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-26 16:44:39

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 26 January 2010, GMan wrote:
> Take your best singleton class, but remove the bit where it intrudes and
> forces only a single instantiation. Call this "global", which provides the
> same thing as a singleton but allows other instantiations of the class. My
> argument was that this class is more worth boost's time than the singleton
> class. The reason being, users of global could always re-introduce the
> single-instantiation behavior, but don't have to. This provides more
> flexibility.

If you peel off the singleton aspect of singletons, you're left with global 
state and lazy initialization.  A facility that supports thread-safe lazy 
initialization might be useful, but why tie it to global state (which is of 
more dubious value)?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktfYkcACgkQ5vihyNWuA4XUeACdHM9zyWX13SGz5ZF1iHLoWXJz
C/cAn05tGtPIN6N7YhF4IrDpnsJN4wqd
=rfHe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----