Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> I can see it is possible. Why is it 'preferable'?
>>
> | Free functions provide (often...) better encapsulation (Scott
> | Meyers?).
>
> Btu not if they operatoe on global variables... then you do not gain
> anything.
Where do you stand on the particular design under discussion?
We're talking about free functions that provide access to a class's
member variables. The class declaration, definition and single
instance is hidden entirely inside a .C file. Whether it is a
singleton class or not is nothing but an implementation detail.
namespace lyx {
namespace global {
/** start the whole thing off, instantiating the
* class variable that will store lastfiles,
* lyxrc, converters, formats
*
void exec(int argc, char * argv[]);
LastFiles & lastfiles();
LyXRC const & lyxrc();
Converters const & converters();
Formats const & formats();
} // namespace global
} // namespace lyx
Is this a 'good design'? One downer --- it is impossible to provide
const reference and reference accessor functions with the same name.
--
Angus
