Re: Registrar question... bug?

[martin f k. <ma...@ma...>]

also sprach stephan beal <st...@s1...> [2004.06.01.1248 +0200]:
> > Yes, you are correct. It should probably be static.
> >
> > But then again, there's a problem because then it needs to be
> > initialised, and since libfac is header-only...
>=20
> Eeeek... i can see where this is heading. That's the reason that
> s11n's registration objects are in anonymous namespaces: to allow
> such initialization without ODR violations. i banged my head for
> days trying to figure that out, though. Maybe the Registrar should
> be moved into an anonymous namespace?

What's the difference between what you want and what I do with the
macros? The registrars are created in anonymous namespaces...
aren't they?

I doubt you want the class to be in an anonymous namespace...

> > I think I considered that and chose to make the builder
> > non-static because the size overhead is zero and it's not like
> > you'll create one million registrars for the same type combo.
> > or?
>=20
> i think you're right.
>=20
> My main concern is the possible end-user confusion when he
> registers 2 keys for the same type. As a user i would expect the
> LAST-run registration to take effect, but in fact only the
> first-run registration would happen.

So we should add an error policy, or figure out a way to make this
a compiler error. like using static asserts. i'd like that the most.

--=20
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
=20
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
spamtraps: kra...@ai... mad...@ma...
=20
"man soll nicht in kirchen gehn, wenn man reine luft atmen will."
                                                 - friedrich nietzsche