On Dec 21, 9:41 am, Salt_Peter <pj_h...@yahoo.comwrote:
Quote:
|
On Dec 21, 3:11 am, Sarath <CSar...@gmail.comwrote:
|
Quote:
Quote: |
I'm extremely sorry to paste wrong code. Please refer this one.
| |
Quote:
Quote:
class CSingle
{
public:
static CSingle& GetInstance(){ static CSingle s; return s; }
| |
Quote:
Quote:
private:
CSingle() { cout<<"ctor"; }
~CSingle() { cout<<"dtor"; }
};
| |
Quote:
Quote: |
Sorry for the incovenience.Please refer this code for my question
| |
Quote:
|
declare your destructor public. No reason to hide it.
|
There's also no reason to make it public, since the code should
work if the destructor is private as well. (A long time ago,
this was a frequent error, since the pre-standard specification
wasn't too clear as to where access of the destructor should be
checked. But any modern compiler should get it right.)
Quote:
|
So what about the compiler generated copy constructor?
|
Good point.
Quote:
int main()
{
CSingle instance;
CSingle copy(instance);
}
|
Assignment would require two instances, or... Making it private
certainly doesn't hurt, however, and IMHO makes the intent
clearer.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34