Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!dinl!noren
From: noren@dinl.uucp (Charles Noren)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Static member definition vs. declaration?
Message-ID: <1848@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Apr 91 14:39:43 GMT
Reply-To: noren@dinl.UUCP (Charles Noren)
Organization: Martin Marietta I&CS, Denver CO.
Lines: 29

We have a debate in our group.  When you declare a static
member, such as:

   class X {static int myVar;};

Do you need to make a definition elsewhere,

   int X::myVar;

I claim you do (and of course you want to initialize it
at the same time).  Others in my group say you don't and
offer proof that our 2.0 and 2.1 Cfront compilers do fine
without the "int X::myVar" statement.  We all are aware
of the holy writ (ARM) on page 179 and 405, but we vary
on our interpretation of it.  I claim our compilers permit
an anachronism, the others think not.

I now humbly come and submit myself to the Wisdom of the
Network.  What is the answer?  ...and perhaps, if this is
possible, could the answer include why it is the way it is.

Much Thanks,

-- 
Chuck Noren
NET:     dinl!noren@ncar.ucar.edu
US-MAIL: Martin Marietta I&CS, MS XL8058, P.O. Box 1260,
         Denver, CO 80201-1260
Phone:   (303) 977-1646