Re: [boost] Is there any interest in a base class which prevents construction during the static initialization phase?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in a base class which prevents construction during the static initialization phase?
From: Joshua Juran (jjuran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-12 23:14:30

On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Ben Robinson wrote:

> Because the order of static initialization is undefined, numerous  
> difficult
> to detect problems can arise when multiple objects are initialized  
> during
> the static initialization phase.  This base class would guarantee  
> that a
> class will never be unintentionally constructed during static
> initialization.  This is the same philosophy behind how  
> boost::noncopyable
> guarantees that a class will never be unintentionally copied.
>
> int main()
> {
>    nonstaticinitializable::enable_initialization(); // Indicates that
> static initialization is complete.
>    Foo foo; // This instance initializes successfully after static
> initialization.
>    return 0;
> }   // main
>
> What does Boost think about submission::nonstaticinitializable (I  
> chose the
> name to mirror noncopyable)?

The requirement to modify main() is sufficiently burdensome that I  
probably wouldn't use this technique, though I admit the failure mode  
is an assertion failure that's easy to fix.  But also consider that  
the unit defining main() might be written in C.

Josh