Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 716091
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T05:15:37+00:00 2026-05-14T05:15:37+00:00

Is it compulsory to have a private destructor for a singleton class.

  • 0

Is it compulsory to have a private destructor for a singleton class.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T05:15:37+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 5:15 am

    This might not be what you are looking for.. But for reference, I use it as follows:

    // .h
    class Foo {
    public:
        static Foo* getInstance();
        static void destroy();
    private:
        Foo();
        ~Foo();
    
        static Foo* myInstance;
    };
    
    // .cpp
    Foo* Foo::myInstance = NULL;
    
    Foo* Foo::getInstance(){
        if (!myInstance){
            myInstance = new Foo();
        }
        return myInstance;
    }
    void Foo::destroy(){
        delete myInstance;
        myInstance = NULL;
    }
    

    Then at the end of my program, I call destroy on the object. As Péter points out the system will reclaim the memory when your program ends, so there is no real reason. The reason I use a destroy is when Ogre complained that I hadn’t released all the memory I allocated. After that I just use it as “good manner”, since I like cleaning up after myself.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

If both get and set are compulsory in C# automatic properties, why do I
in my application i prompt for password in onResume(), and Before this i have
I am coming across a strange thing. I have a number in binary in
I've spent the last three hours trying to get a simple Twitter status update
Can someone look at this code. I am using two plugins in the form.

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.