Rico Felix wrote:Getting in on the fun... Could this implementation provide a rock solid singleton class?
Sure. However, the need for such an idiom (I believe it's called "lazy initialization holder") is extremely rare.
It's also quite possible that it will be made redundant by future releases (several others already have been), in which case what you'll be left with is a piece of arcane code.
That's assuming you even
need a singleton to begin with.
Winston