On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 08:56:56 UTC, so wrote:
You have to expose either way no? "A.make" instead of "makeA"
Yeah, in most sane code, I would imagine so. But still, the original example was just `make` version `A.make`. They could both obscure their return type through various means (like auto), but imo it makes less sense to do so for the static member function - I would be surprised to call `A.make` and not get a value of type `A`. But it would only be a tiny improvement and I don't think it's really relevant to the singleton pattern.
