On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 17:40:02 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 14:58:16 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
At any rate, I am forced to admit I made a mistake about
`hasIntance()` not needing synchronization. I neglected the
possibility that the constructor(or anything else used for
initialization) can throw!
The compiler might decide that it's better to write the global
reference first, and if the initializer throws just set it
back to null. If that is the case, `hasInstance()` could see
that the global reference is not null and return true, and
then the initializer will throw and the initializing thread
will set the global reference to null again.
So yea, I'm gonna have to synchronize it too...
OK, it is done.
Next step - write the introduction. And then add the shared
version of the singleton.
OK, I've written and pushed the documentation. I'll try to find
somewhere to host the generated HTML.
I've also added `SharedSingleton` and renamed `LowLockSingleton`
to `__GSharedSingleton` for consistency. I *did not* rename
`ThreadLocalSingleton` to `StaticSingleton` - this will be too
confusing("aren't all singletons static?").
