Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!tellab5!balr!clrcom!rmartin
From: rmartin@clear.com (Bob Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Static member definition vs. declaration?
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.133728.5300@clear.com>
Date: 19 Apr 91 13:37:28 GMT
References: <1848@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Organization: Clear Communications, Inc.
Lines: 21

In article <1848@dinl.mmc.UUCP> noren@dinl.UUCP (Charles Noren) writes:
>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;
>

Although the source will compile without the definition, I have been
unable to get it to link without it.  It seems that (at least with
Sun's 2.0 compiler) the declaration in the class is _not_ a
definition, and that a true definition is required.

-- 
+-Robert C. Martin-----+:RRR:::CCC:M:::::M:| Nobody is responsible for |
| rmartin@clear.com    |:R::R:C::::M:M:M:M:| my words but me.  I want  |
| uunet!clrcom!rmartin |:RRR::C::::M::M::M:| all the credit, and all   |
+----------------------+:R::R::CCC:M:::::M:| the blame.  So there.     |