Re: singleton initialization

From:

James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Thu, 17 May 2007 18:47:50 CST

Message-ID:

<1179440172.980270.280450@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>

On May 16, 9:35 pm, "\"fr3@K\".invalid" <f...@fsfoundry.org> wrote:

On May 16, 6:13 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

And thus introduces order of destruction issues. As a general
rule, it is preferable that the instance of a singleton NOT be
destructed. Ever.

Would you elaberate on your preference further? Which I failed
to see as a good generic solution.

What is there to elaborate on? If the singleton object is
destructed, you potentially have order of destructor problems.
So it's usually a good idea to create them in a way that they
won't get destructed.

--
James Kanze (Gabi Software) email: james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient?e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S?mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'?cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

--
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]