Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:07:40 -0400, Justin Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
btw. The reason I marked the static instance member as private
was simply to enforce stylist use of Foo() rather than Foo.instance
Yuck Foo().xyz :)
But, whatever floats your boat.
He he, that's a cute quip.
To go one step further, if you want it to truly be a singleton type, you
should mark the constructor private.
-Steve
Indeed. I forgot the private constructor in this version but had it
in earlier versions.
Continuing on with the saga, it's a pity that immutable
is not compatible with Object toString method without a cast.
class Foo
{
static immutable private Foo instance;
static this() {
instance = new Foo;
}
static immutable(Foo) opCall() {
return instance;
}
immutable:
private this() {}
}
void main()
{
// numerous compile errors if the cast is left out
stdout.writefln( "Foo() = %s", cast(Foo) Foo());
}
JJ
