🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 96Mar29114545@gabi.gabi-soft.fr, kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) writes:
>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?  

Assuming a program terminates normally (returning from main or
calling exit), I believe that every non-local static object defined
in a module that is somehow referenced will eventually be intialized.


>|> 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.

I believe the current draft says that. Few current implementations
ensure that result, and whether that guarantee will remain in the standard
is under discussion.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]