Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!milton!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!cadsi
From: cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Static member definition vs. declaration?
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.195846.16760@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: 30 Apr 91 19:58:46 GMT
References: <1991Apr19.133728.5300@clear.com>
Organization: CAD-Research, U. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Lines: 26

From article <1991Apr19.133728.5300@clear.com>, by rmartin@clear.com (Bob Martin):
> 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.
> 

Correct, in C++ 2.0, static class members MUST be allocated outside the
class structure.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Tom Hite					|  The views expressed by me |
|Manager, Product development			|  are mine, not necessarily |
|CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc.	|  the views of CADSI.       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|