Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in a base class which prevents construction during the static initialization phase?
From: Joshua Juran (jjuran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-12 23:14:30
On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Ben Robinson wrote:
> Because the order of static initialization is undefined, numerous
> difficult
> to detect problems can arise when multiple objects are initialized
> during
> the static initialization phase. This base class would guarantee
> that a
> class will never be unintentionally constructed during static
> initialization. This is the same philosophy behind how
> boost::noncopyable
> guarantees that a class will never be unintentionally copied.
>
> int main()
> {
> nonstaticinitializable::enable_initialization(); // Indicates that
> static initialization is complete.
> Foo foo; // This instance initializes successfully after static
> initialization.
> return 0;
> } // main
>
> What does Boost think about submission::nonstaticinitializable (I
> chose the
> name to mirror noncopyable)?
The requirement to modify main() is sufficiently burdensome that I
probably wouldn't use this technique, though I admit the failure mode
is an assertion failure that's easy to fix. But also consider that
the unit defining main() might be written in C.
Josh