• turpeine lut.fi (10/10) Apr 08 2005 It would be great, if there could be singleton class inside language. Or...
• Georg Wrede (12/14) Apr 08 2005 Would you care to elaborate on the merits of having an in-built
• Benji Smith (19/21) Apr 11 2005 Here's the way I would do it, using current syntax:

turpeine lut.fi writes:

It would be great, if there could be singleton class inside language. Or is
there?

singleton SFoo
{
this();
}


..

SFoo a();
SFoo b();

if (&a==&b) // this would be true

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

turpeine lut.fi wrote:
 It would be great, if there could be singleton class inside language. Or is
 there?

Would you care to elaborate on the merits of having an in-built 
singleton class?

Also, (in general,) for such things to become a part of the language, 
there would have to be reasons like:

- hard to work around
- brittleness of work around
- major usefulness of new syntax
- substantial increase of stability/clearness of written code

or other weighty issues.

There may be some, but you'd have to explain them. (At least to thickies 
like me. :-) )

Benji Smith <dlanguage xxagg.com> writes:

turpeine lut.fi wrote:
 It would be great, if there could be singleton class inside language. Or is
 there?

Here's the way I would do it, using current syntax:



class MySingleton {

   public static Object myObject = null;

   static {
     // perform some sort of initialization on myObject
   }

   // Private ctor prevents object from direct instantiation
   private MySingleton() {}

   public static getSingletor() {
     return myObject;
   }
}



What's wrong with that?

A singleton is a simple pattern (like a factory) that can be **easily** 
implemented, without changing the language at all.

--BenjiSmith