For constants of a class, should I use class scope static const, or file scope const?
For example:
// .h
class C {
private:
static const int some_constant_c;
}
// .cc
const C::some_constant_c = 10;
vs.
// .h
class C {
}
// .cc
const some_constant_c = 10;
To me, the former one have better semantic meaning that the constant is of a certain class, but the latter one have the advantage not exposing constants to header file.
==============
One follow up question on this:
What if I want my constants be accessed by subclasses. Make sense to put static const in protected? Example follows:
// .h
class C {
protected:
static const int some_constant_c;
}
It's a matter of personal preference, of course. Trying not to expose class internals in the header file is a ship that has most definitely sailed in C++... between member variables and private member functions, it's just not practical to keep implementation details out of the header (unless you're using the pImpl idiom).
If all you want is to hide the value of the constant, note that you can put the initializer in the source file instead.
If you do implement the constants as globals in the source file, use an anonymous namespace to keep them from causing linker collisions.
I'd prefer 2nd variant, provided the const in the 1st case is private.
Why should one pollute the class declaration with redundant information?
Consider, you are implementing a protocol parser, with many many constants. How will the class declaration look like?
Another issue is, why should you type the name of the const twice? I try to keep definition and initialization as close as possible.
Just an opinion.
Related
I just wrote a class with some static data members, but now I am getting errors about "undefined references". Why doesn't this work? What am I doing wrong?
_(Note: This is meant to be an entry to [Stack Overflow's C++ FAQ](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/c++-faq). If you want to critique the idea of providing an FAQ in this form, then [the posting on meta that started all this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68647/setting-up-a-faq-for-the-c-tag) would be the place to do that. Answers to that question are monitored in the [C++ chatroom](https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/10/c-lounge), where the FAQ idea started out in the first place, so your answer is very likely to get read by those who came up with the idea.)_
To understand this, you should have a good understanding of compiling and linking, and the differences between declarations and definitions.
Consider the following class:
//In header file
class Example {
static bool exampleStaticMember;
};
Here, exampleStaticMember is declared but not defined. This means that if exampleStaticMember is used in a way that means that it must have an address then there must be a separate definition for it. In general, no declaration of a static data member in a class definition is a definition of that member.
The required declaration is usually put in the cpp file which contains the other definitions for the members of the class. It must be in the same namespace as the class definition. The definition typically looks like:
//In source file:
//This may optionally have an initialiser (eg "= true")
bool Example::exampleStaticMember;
The definition can be put in any cpp file, but it should not be put in the header with the class, because that would be likely to break the One Definition Rule.
As a special case, if the static member variable is an const integral or enumeration type then it can have an initialiser in the class definition:
//In header file
class Example {
static const int initialised = 15;
};
In this case, the definition in the cpp file is still required, but it is not allowed to have an initialiser:
//In source file
//Note: no initialiser!
const int Example::initialised;
Static members that have been initialised like this can be used in constant expressions.
Templates
For a static data member of a template, things are slightly different. The static member should be defined in the header along with the rest of the class:
//In header file
template<typename T>
class Example {
static int exampleInt;
static T exampleT;
}
template<typename T> int Example<T>::exampleInt;
template<typename T> T Example<T>::exampleT;
This works because there is a specific exception to the One Definition Rule for static data members of class templates.
Other uses of static
When the static keyword is applied to functions and objects that are not in a class scope it can take on a very different meaning.
When applied to objects in a function scope, it declares an object that is initialised in the first execution of the function and that subsequently keeps its value between function calls.
When applied to objects or functions at namespace scope (outside of any class or function definition), it declares objects or functions with internal linkage. This usage is deprecated for objects, as the unnamed-namespace provides a better alternative.
You have to instantiate static members defined in a header in a .cpp file. For example:
// foo.h
class foo {
static int X;
};
// foo.cpp
#include "foo.h"
int foo::X = 0;
Why should I declare a private static const variable in header (and initialize it in cpp) instead of just defining + declaring it in the cpp?
i.e.
case1.h
class MyClass
{
...
private:
static const MyType some_constant;
}
case1.cpp
const MyType MyClass::some_constant = ...;
case2.h
//No mention of some_constant at all
case2.cpp
const MyType some_constant = ...;
Assuming common c++ conventions are followed (1 header & cpp is only associated with 1 class, never #include .cpp file), in both cases, the variable is private to the class, both are initialized before the constructor is called, both provide the function of being a "static class local constant".
Is there any difference between the above two approaches? (And which one is preferable)?
Since it's a private member, only the implementation of the class can access it.
Therefore, in the interests of not unnecessarily polluting your class definition, I'd be inclined to adopt the second approach.
You could go one step further and define it in an anonymous namespace:
namespace {
const MyType some_constant = ...;
}
in that way, it is certainly localised to a single translation unit. Note however that your using const implies internal linkage by default. (Without const, the variable would be accessible by others using extern)
Given is a class with a static member.
class BaseClass
{
public:
static std::string bstring;
};
String has obviously to be default-initialized outside of the class.
std::string BaseClass::bstring {"."};
If I include the above line in the header along with the class, I get a symbol multiply defined error. It has to be defined in a separate cpp file, even with include guards or pragma once.
Isn't there a way to define it in the header?
You can't define a static member variable more than once. If you put variable definitions into a header, it is going to be defined in each translation unit where the header is included. Since the include guards are only affecting the compilation of one translation unit, they won't help, either.
However, you can define static member functions! Now, at first sight that may not look as if it could help except, of course, that function can have local static variable and returning a reference to one of these behaves nearly like a static member variable:
static std::string& bstring() { static std::string rc{"."}; return rc; }
The local static variable will be initialized the first time this function is called. That is, the construction is delayed until the function is accessed the first time. Of course, if you use this function to initialize other global objects it may also make sure that the object is constructed in time. If you use multiple threads this may look like a potential data race but it isn't (unless you use C++03): the initialization of the function local static variable is thread-safe.
In C++17 you can use inline variables, which you can use even outside classes.
The inline specifier, when used in a decl-specifier-seq of a variable with static storage duration (static class member or namespace-scope variable), declares the variable to be an inline variable.
A static member variable (but not a namespace-scope variable) declared constexpr is implicitly an inline variable.⁽¹⁾
For example:
class Someclass {
public:
inline static int someVar = 1;
};
Or,
namespace SomeNamespace {
inline static int someVar = 1;
}
⁽¹⁾ https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/inline
Regarding
” Isn't there a way to define [the static data member] in the header?
Yes there is.
template< class Dummy >
struct BaseClass_statics
{
static std::string bstring;
};
template< class Dummy >
std::string BaseClass_statics<Dummy>::bstring = ".";
class BaseClass
: public BaseClass_statics<void>
{};
An alternative is to use a function, as Dietmar suggested. Essentially that is a Meyers' singleton (google it).
Edit: Also, since this answer was posted we've got the inline object proposal, which I think is accepted for C++17.
Anyway, think twice about the design here. Globals variables are Evil™. This is essentially a global.
To keep the definition of a static value with the declaration in C++11
a nested static structure can be used. In this case the static member
is a structure and has to be defined in a .cpp file, but the values
are in the header.
class BaseClass
{
public:
static struct _Static {
std::string bstring {"."};
} global;
};
Instead of initializing individual members the whole static structure is initialized:
BaseClass::_Static BaseClass::global;
The values are accessed with
BaseClass::global.bstring;
Note that this solution still suffers from the problem of the order of
initialization of the static variables. When a static value is used to
initialize another static variable, the first may not be initialized,
yet.
// file.h
class File {
public:
static struct _Extensions {
const std::string h{ ".h" };
const std::string hpp{ ".hpp" };
const std::string c{ ".c" };
const std::string cpp{ ".cpp" };
} extension;
};
// file.cpp
File::_Extensions File::extension;
// module.cpp
static std::set<std::string> headers{ File::extension.h, File::extension.hpp };
In this case the static variable headers will contain either { "" }
or { ".h", ".hpp" }, depending on the order of initialization created by the linker.
§3.2.6 and the following paragraphs from the current c++ 17 draft (n4296) define the rules when more than one definition can be present in different translation units:
There can be more than one definition of a class type (Clause 9), enumeration type (7.2), inline function with
external linkage (7.1.2), class template (Clause 14), non-static function template (14.5.6), static data member
of a class template (14.5.1.3), member function of a class template (14.5.1.1), or template specialization for
which some template parameters are not specified (14.7, 14.5.5) in a program provided that each definition
appears in a different translation unit, and provided the definitions satisfy the following requirements. Given
such an entity named D defined in more than one translation unit, then [...]
Obviously definitions of static data members of class type are not considered to appear in multiple translations units. Thus, according to the standard, it is not allowed.
The suggested answers from Cheers and hth. - Alf and Dietmar are more kind of a "hack", exploiting that definitions of
static data member of a class template (14.5.1.3)
and
inline function with external linkage (7.1.2)
are allowed in multiple TU ( FYI: static functions defined inside a class definition have external linkage and are implicitly defined as inline ) .
No, it can't be done in a header - at least not if the header is included more than once in your source-files, which appears to be the case, or you wouldn't get an error like that. Just stick it in one of the .cpp files and be done with it.
UPDATE: My answer below explains why this cannot be done in the way suggested by the question. There are at least two answers circumventing this; they may or may not solve the problem.
The bstring static member has to be linked to a specific memory address. For this to happen, it has to appear in a single object file, therefore it has to appear in a single cpp file. Unless you're playing with #ifdef's to make sure this happens, what you want cannot be done in the header file, as your header file may be included by more than one cpp files.
I've been learning C++, and I've come across static variable (I have prior knowledge from C89), and in the resource i'm using, they've declared a static variable in a class such as:
class nameHere
{
public:
static int totalNum;
}
int nameHere::totalNum = 0;
int main()
{}
For Example.
What I don't understand is that, since I've already declared that the static variable is an integer in the class definition, why do I need to also declare it as an integer outside of the class definition?
Would it not make sense to simply initialise it like so:
nameHere::totalNum = 0;
int main()
{}
Is there a particular reason or simply a convention of C++?
Thanks for all the help!
This would (probably) make the language even more difficult to parse (and it's already almost insanely difficult to parse anyway).
As it is, the datatype (int, long, my_class, whatever) tells the compiler that what it's seeing is the beginning of a declaration (which, in this case, is also a definition). Without that, the compiler would have a rather more difficult time sorting things out.
In the specific case of things at global scope, it wouldn't be that bad, because at global scope about all you can have is a series of declarations. At any other scope, however, things would be more difficult (and having one rule at global scope, and another elsewhere would be ugly indeed).
In C++11 you can simply initialize the variable inside the class:
class nameHere
{
public:
static const int totalNum = {0};
}
There is a difference between a definition and a declaration.
While the static variable in the class has been declared, it has not been defined. The One Definition Rule, explains declarations and definitions and states
In any translation unit, a template, type, function, or object can have no more than one definition. Some of these can have any number of declarations.
Therefore, the full type of the object must be used when declaring the variable.
I know how to initialize a static member that's not an integer, but I'm wondering, what is the rationale behind the syntax for this? I'd like to be able to just put the value in the class, like you can with an integer member, a la:
class A {
static const int i = 3;
};
I realise this could mean more rebuilding if I change the value since it's a change in the header - but in some cases that's pretty unlikely - and just as bad as changing a #define in the header anyway.
It doesn't seem like something that would be terribly hard for the compiler to understand. Are there technical reasons why it works the way it does? Or is it just a case of the compiler enforcing the good practice of separating the implementation from the definition?
Because that is the class declaration. You don't have any object yet.
You need to actually define the value somewhere --- somewhere specific.
Since it is static it's actually taking up space somewhere. But, since the .H file which has that declaration can be #included in many source files, which one defines holds the actual space it is using? Having the compiler automatically define the space in every object file and having the linker sort it out would be a violation of the "One Definition Rule".
A static class member has linkage, so it needs to be in a source file. Just because you declare it const doesn't mean it really can't change (please look up volatile for example).
This might help you:
class A {
enum { i = 3 }; // use an enum to set a constant value in the class declaration
void f() { int k = int(i); }
}