Re: Destroy a Singleton : static or not static ?
On Feb 16, 7:27 am, requinham <requin...@gmail.com> wrote:
class A {
private:
A(){};
A(const A& instance){};
~A(){};
static A* uniqueInstance=NULL;
public:
static A* getInstance(){
if (uniqueInstance==NULL)
uniqueInstance=new A();
return uniqueInstance;
}
void destroy(){
if (uniqueInstance != NULL){
delete uniqueInstance;
uniqueInstance=NULL;
}
}
is like this and normally in all the case, the destroy function is
called at the end of singleton then it's not important to make it
static
In this case I would say you want to make it static.
If the method doesn't use any non-static members, then the method
itself can be static. A rough rule of thumb, if you can make it
static, go ahead and do so. The advantage is that you can call the
function without needing an instance, e.g. you can call A::destroy()
instead of A::getInstance()->destroy().
In your case, you are probably right in that it doesn't make much
difference either way.
As a silly aside, if destroy() is non-static, then while calling
A::getInstance()->destroy(), there is brief moment where you are
executing the method of an object that has been destroyed. It seems
disturbing...