This is shorter: Class::singleton() It's also more consistent with the rest of our style (we usually don't put "get" in getter names).
-Filip > On Jan 28, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> 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
