Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!wmmiller
From: wmmiller@cup.portal.com (William Michael Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Static consts within classes?
Message-ID: <31208@cup.portal.com>
Date: 27 Jun 90 23:42:31 GMT
References: <10460@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
  <PCG.90Jun26213003@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk> <274@taumet.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 19

I fully agree with nearly everything Steve Clamage says in his comments to
Piercarlo Grandi (<PCG.90Jun26213003@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk>).  There is one
point in his example that needs some correction, though:

> file mystruct.c:
>         #include "mystruct.h"
>         static const int mystruct::j = 1; // initialized here only
>         static int mystruct::k = 2;       // initialized here only

Both of the "static" modifiers in the definitions are incorrect.  If
allowed, "static" in the definition would mean that the member had internal
linkage, which contradicts the statement in the ARM, section 9.4, that
"static members of a global class have external linkage."  The correct rule
for static members (data and functions) is to put the "static" modifier in
the class declaration and omit it in the definition.  (See a bit later on in
that chapter for examples of correct definitions of static members.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William M. Miller, Glockenspiel, Inc.; P. O. Box 366, Sudbury, MA 01776-0003