🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jckdc$ad6@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve
Clamage) writes:

    [...]
|> I believe a reasonable solution to the problem of initialization of
|> non-local static data is not to use non-local static data!

|> Instead of a static data object or static class data member, use a 
|> function with a local static object.
    [...]
|> Only two features are missing, compared to non-local static objects:

|> 1. If you never reference an object, it is never initialized.

But is this guaranteed by the standard anyway?  I know that I have a
significant number of static objects which must be initialized before
main (but in any order), but I have always believed that this works
because of the way current compilers work, and not because of anything
in the standard.

|> 2. The order of destruction remains unspecified. If that is a problem,
|> possibly the static objects could be of a type which has a do-nothing
|> destructor and a "destroy" member function which could be called
|> explicitly at the proper time.

I thought that the order of destruction was the reverse of
initialization.  This is what it says in the January draft, at least.
Has this been changed?
-- 
James Kanze           (+33) 88 14 49 00          email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                            -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]