From: fmatthew5876@googlemail.com   
      
   On Monday, December 17, 2012 2:47:13 PM UTC-5, Francis Glassborow wrote:   
   > I am not sure that that is generally widespread (and it needs revision   
   > in the light of what C++12 offers, e.g. =delete)   
   >   
      
   Sure we might now use the delete, but the local static object in the static   
   method trick is something I've seen proposed often.   
      
      
   > But that is a necessary cost for using global (mutable) data in a   
   > multi-threading environment.   
      
   If you know the object is not going to be used in other threads you   
   don't need the check.   
      
      
   > Well I agree with that but I do not have that mentality, nor do good   
   > programmers. One size fits all mentality is the hall mark of the mediocre.   
      
   Agreed, but I haven't seen many other singleton (or I should say more   
   generally global data) models proposed out there in C++ world.   
      
   > Now you have to control that:)   
      
   Its a trade off, in some situations that desirable, in some not. The real   
   question is whether or not you want lazy evaluation.   
      
      
   > Sometimes an advantage and sometimes not. You are just proposing a   
   > different 'one size fits all' solution, though perhaps a more versatile   
   > one (at a cost)   
      
   Never said this is the new silver bullet and thou shall use my proposal. Its   
   just an alternative with its own benefits and costs.   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)