template parameters in constructor

I'm trying to add parameters in constructor of my singleton. My code:

Code:

---

template <typename T>
class Singleton
{
public:
        ...
        template<typename U, typename X>
        static T* getInstancePtr();
        ...

protected:
        Singleton();
        template<typename U, typename X>
        Singleton( U, X );
        virtual ~Singleton();

private:
        Singleton( const Singleton<T>& instance );
        T& operator = ( const Singleton<T>& instance );
        static T* _object;
};

---

This is my implementation in my "Singleton.inl" file:

Code:

---

template <typename T>
template <typename U, typename X>
inline T* Singleton::getInstancePtr()
{
        if( _object == NULL )
                _object = new T( U, X );
        return _object;
}

template <typename T>
template <typename U, typename X>
inline Singleton::Singleton( U, X )
{
}

---

My compiler complains about the existing declaration:

Code:

---

error C2244: 'util::Singleton<T>::getInstancePtr' : unable to match function definition to an existing declaration
1>        definition
1>        'T *util::Singleton::getInstancePtr(void)'
1>        existing declarations
1>        'T *util::Singleton<T>::getInstancePtr(void)'
...
error C2244: 'util::Singleton<T>::{ctor}' : unable to match function definition to an existing declaration
1>        definition
1>        'util::Singleton::Singleton(void)'
1>        existing declarations
1>        'util::Singleton<T>::Singleton(const util::Singleton<T> &)'
1>        'util::Singleton<T>::Singleton(U,X)'
1>        'util::Singleton<T>::Singleton(void)'

---

Why this problem occurs? Can you help?

Thanks for replies

First, wouldn't it make more sense to just use a Singleton<T<U,V>> rather than jumping through these hoops? Trying to instantiate a singleton with parameters is a pain anyway, it goes against the pattern.

Second,

Code:

---

template <typename T>
template <typename U, typename X>
inline Singleton<T>::Singleton( U, X )
{
}

---

I'm fairly sure that's what you need.

Man, you're right. The solution is always there.
Thanks for your reply