From: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com   
      
   Am 24.11.2012 19:47, schrieb Frank Birbacher:   
   > Am 22.11.12 06:26, schrieb Daniel Krügler:   
   >> So you suggest that everyone who uses your singleton is supposed   
   >> to call the init function? The advantage of a singleton is to hide   
   >> such internal issues.   
   >   
   > So, what if you need to pass arguments to initialization?   
   >   
   >> I also don't see how you can compile-time enforce the essential   
   >> invariant of a singleton - namely that only one object of type X   
   >> exists.   
   >   
   > The header does not even define a class type. So how could anyone   
   > create an instance of it? The mapping that Matthew proposes is:   
   >   
   > Logger::GetInstance().doFoo()  becomes  Logger::doFoo()   
   > where Logger is changed from a class to a namespace. All data is   
   > defined only in the cpp.   
   >   
   > The concept is old. Before object orientation this approach was the   
   > way to go.   
      
   I must say that I haven't understood that from the OP. I'm familiar with   
   what you describe above but I don't consider it as a classical singleton   
   and I surely had not recognized by the posting.   
      
   I agree that it has in common with the singleton pattern that it   
   provides a global point of access of functionality. It might be useful   
   to add in this context (and to keep some relation to C++ in this   
   discussion) that CORBA's ORB_init / destroy functions corresponds to   
   what the OP describes here.   
      
   Greetings from Bremen,   
      
   Daniel Krügler   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)