"Class::unique()" is one of the known names for singletons Yong Li ________________________________ From: Maciej Stachowiak<mailto:m...@apple.com> Sent: 1/28/2015 9:11 PM To: Darin Adler<mailto:da...@apple.com> Cc: WebKit Development<mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org> Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Pattern for singleton classes instance getters
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: > > I like the economy of the smaller non-member function name; it seems overly > wordy to be constantly stating the class name as well as the nearly > meaningless word “shared”. I think the word “shared” is what I like least > about the member function approach. > > It had always thought that we used static member functions for this to > replicate the pattern from Objective-C, and it seems more idiomatic modern > C++ to use a free function for this kind of thing. > > Maciej’s point about Class::create() might be enough to convince me to change > my view, though; it’s hard to see any reason the same logic wouldn’t apply in > that case. I would also find it acceptable to use free functions for all these cases. Mostly it bugs me for them to be different - the singleton case is rarer, so it seems odd to treat it as especially conciseness-worthy. Yet another possibility is finding a better name than ‘shared’ for the singleton pattern function, but I don’t have any better ideas. Class::getSingleton() is more explicit but the extra verbosity doesn’t seem helpful to me. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
