Shouldn't declare the constructor of ThreadLocalSingleton to be private?

[chuchao333]

just as in Singleton

[chenshuo]

What do you think the purpose of boost::noncopyable base class is?

[chuchao333]

sorry if I didn't state it clearly, what I meant is the default
constructor, like you wrote in Singleton class:

private:
Singleton();
~Singleton();

As I understand, boost::noncopyable only declared the copy constructor
and assigment operator to be private,

for you current ThreadLocalSingleton class, I think user can still
write sth like:

ThreadLocalSingleton t1, t2, t3;

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Shuo Chen notifications@github.comwrote:

What do you think the purpose of boost::noncopyable base class is?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/2#issuecomment-14781132
.

ChuChao

[chenshuo]

You are right, thank you. fixed,