Re: Destroy a Singleton : static or not static ?
On Feb 18, 12:07 pm, "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
"James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[...]
news:6af639d0-3a55-4d21-957e-8551fc521fba@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Could you be more specific as there are various ways of
implementing a singleton. If you are using the Meyers
Singleton then there is no need for a destroy function static
or otherwise as the singleton is destroyed automatically at
the appropriate time during program termination.
For some definition of "appropriate". Generally, it's
preferrable that a singleton never be destroyed.
Garbage. It is preferable that a singleton is destroyed in a
deterministic order relative to other static duration objects
during program termination and this happens automatically and
is defined by the language (when using Meyers Singleton).
Only if you like undefined behavoir, or can guarantee that the
singleton won't been accessed from the destructors of any static
objects. Destructing the singleton sort of defeats its purpose.
Alexandrescu advocates a phoenix singleton which can be
destroyed and recreated but I dislike this.
Me too. It's not really a singleton (but it can work as one in
many cases).
--
James Kanze