Ndtyjky

Everyone knows the singleton pattern (very simple exemple) :

class Singleton

{

private:

    static Singleton* instance;



public:

    static Singleton* GetInstance() { return instance; }



    void Foo() {}

};

And the use :

Singleton::GetInstance()->Foo();

I wonder, why this GetInstance() is mandatory. I've tried to find a way to eliminate the call to this function, to be able to write for exemple... :

Singleton->Foo();

... using the class name the same way I use a variable, because of the singleton pattern, and others security like deleting the public constructor for exemple, we are sure that we only have a single instance, so why not "using the class as a variable" (quote, unquote, only syntaxic speaking of course !).

Each time, a C++ rule prohibit following exemples :

Singleton->Foo(); // (1)

Singleton()->Foo(); // (2)

Singleton.Foo(); // (3)

Singleton::Foo(); // (4)

Because :

• (1) static Singleton* operator->() { return instance; } is impossible, Class Member Access Operator (->) overload can't be static (see C2801), same for (2) with operator ()


• (3) and (4) operators . and :: can't be overloaded

Only solution here : Macros, but I'm actually using macros, and I want to find an other way and avoiding macros for this...

It's only a syntaxic interrogation, I'm not here to debate about pros and cons of singletons, but I wonder why C++ permit so many things for simplify the use syntax of users classes with overloads, user literals, and we can't eliminate this little function from the pattern.

I don't expect a solution (but if there is one, it would be great), it's just to understand why, to know if there is a explanation, a design reason, a security reason or anything else !

Thanks in advance !

Well one way to do this is to reduce the singleton part of the problem to just the data and create static functions that access that data through the "instance" function (called self() in this example):

class Singletonish

{

private:

    // single (inaccessible) instance of the data

    static auto& self()

    {

        static struct {

            std::string s = "unset";

            int i = 0;

        } data;

        return data;

    }



public:



    static void foo()

    {

        // foo code here

        self().s = "hello";

        self().i = 9;

    }



    static void woo()

    {

        // woo code here

        std::cout << self().s << 'n';

        std::cout << self().i << 'n';

    }

};



int main()

{

    Singletonish::woo();



    Singletonish::foo();



    Singletonish::woo();

}

Output:

unset

0

hello

9

Personally I recommend just doing it the normal way: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1008289/3807729

I can think of the following way in C++11:

#include <memory>



struct singleton

{

    int i;

};



template <class Singleton_t> 

struct singleton_holder

{

    auto* operator -> () const noexcept

    {

        static Singleton_t s;

        return std::addressof(s);

    }

};



// optional C++14 feature, can be commented if wanted

template <class Singleton_t>

constexpr const static /* inline */ singleton_holder<Singleton_t> singleton_v{};

Now, with this code, you can just create singleton_holder<singleton> s and use s->i to access the member of the singleton directly.

Or you can use C++14 way: singleton_v<singleton>->i to access member of the singleton directly.