Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: static member initialization (lippman's book)
Message-ID: <9928@alice.UUCP>
Date: 20 Sep 89 00:49:29 GMT
References: <292@mez.e-technik.uni-bochum.de>
Distribution: comp
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 37

In article <292@mez.e-technik.uni-bochum.de>, frei@mez.e-technik.uni-bochum.de (Matthias Frei) writes:
> I've a question to the scope of static members in Rel. 2.0.
> On page 441 lippman provides an example on static member initialization:
> 
> class Y {
> 	... stuff deleted
> private:
> 	static int val;
> 	};

> int Y::val = 1; 

> Is the statement Y::val = 1 a bug in the book, or are the scope rules
> from Rel 1.2 invalid ? I think val is private to Y and is seen inside
> the class only.

The book is correct.

> If that statement is legal, I hope it only may occur once near by
> the class definition. Or can I assign in this way everywhere ?

It may occur only once in the entire program, although that once may
be anywere.  It is exactly analagous to this:

	class X {
	private:
		void f();
	};

	void X::f() { /*...*/ }

Surely you won't object to the definition of the function member
X::f even though it's private.  Why, then, should you object to
a similar definition of a data member?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com