static constructors and destructors in C++
-
[removed]
Looks like a factory pattern is what you want. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
-
Looks like a factory pattern is what you want. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
[removed]
-
[removed]
One use of a factory design pattern is to ensure that objects are properly initialized during construction. I assume this is what you'd like to accomplish via the static constructor. To implement a factory pattern for the class CFoo, do the following:
- Make CFoo's constructor protected, thereby preventing anyone from doing CFoo* pFoo = new CFoo(); which could create an uninitialized instance.
- Implement the static method CFoo* CFoo::Create(); that serves up a properly initialized object. The static method can set the class's static member is required.
You should browse thru the gang of 4 book. I think you'll enjoy it. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
-
[removed]
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Why am I re-declaring the static int You're not redeclaring it. The .h file declares it - the .cpp allocates storage for it. If you omitted it from the .cpp file you'd get an unresolved reference link error. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
-
[removed]
You are not redeclaring it but you are just declaring it. As it is static it resides even if your class object has not been constructed. It is like using static variables in functions or global vars. IMO the compiler initialises them to zero if you don't do the essentials. So here just after your class def you should initialize it otherwise the compiler spews errors. Atul Sonork 100.13714 netdiva
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Why am I re-declaring the static int You're not redeclaring it. The .h file declares it - the .cpp allocates storage for it. If you omitted it from the .cpp file you'd get an unresolved reference link error. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: If you omitted it from the .cpp file you'd get an unresolved reference link error. Yes I did get that error :-O :-O :-O or if you want it in Ravi-talk pinky pinky :-) Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: If you omitted it from the .cpp file you'd get an unresolved reference link error. Yes I did get that error :-O :-O :-O or if you want it in Ravi-talk pinky pinky :-) Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
I think I said "picky picky". :) /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
-
Looks like a factory pattern is what you want. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
-
Seems to me like a Singleton pattern would do the job better. BTW the standard (well Nov96 draft at least) says a constructor can't have a static modifier (12.1 para 4) if you want official confirmation. i1.2sqrt(u).bcos(ur)sec(c) but b4.isqrt(u).ru/16
I think the Singleton pattern is better suited when you want to expose methods from the one and only instance of a class. But I agree that the ClassFactory pattern can do more than serve up a single class. In fact, it's power lies in the fact that it can serve up specializations of a general base class. /ravi "There is always one more bug..." http://www.ravib.com ravib@ravib.com
-
[removed]
Maybe this article is useful for you: Static Constructor and Destructor in C++