This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Static members class vs. normal c-like interface
I am looking at somebodies code and there are several dozen constants defined in a class like this:
// header file
class Defines
{
public:
static const int Val1;
static const int ValN;
static const char* String1;
static const char* StringN;
...
}
// .CPP
const char* Defines::String1 = "some value"
etc.
Is there some reason to do things this was as opposed to using a namespace instead?
Are there advantages/disadvantages of one over the other
--------- Edit ----------
I'm sorry, I obviously should have pointed this out explicitly, as nobody has inferred it from the name of the class - which is "Defines". i.e. these constants are not associated with a particular class, there has been a class created specifically just to hold constants and nothing else, that is all the class Defines contains.
My question is not why should you place constants in a particular class, the question is is there any value in collecting dozens of them together and placing them in a class whose only purpose is to collect together constants, as opposed to collecting them together in a namespace, or just collecting them together in a header file specifically for that purpose etc.
(There is no currently existing namespace in the project therefore potential issues of polluting the namespace as mentioned in answers are not relevant in this case.)
----- 32nd edit -----------
and a follow up question ---
is placing
const char* Defines::StringN = "Somevalue"
in the .h file inefficient versus placing it in the .cpp file?
Because those constants may be tightly coupled to that class. IE Maybe members of the class take those constants as arguments or return them. Maybe the only place they are meaningful is in the interface to this class, so putting them in a separate namespace doesn't make sense because they only matter to that class.
There is no reason to do it the way it is done here; just like there is not really a reason to use class Defines { public: ... }; instead of struct Defines { ... };. Perhaps whoever wrote the code had previously been writing in a language that does not support namespaces/global variables in namespaces, or thought that this looked `neater' than a lot of extern statements and a namespace.
There is some practical use for this, however, if you intend to make some of these constants private, and then give access to only a few functions/classes. From the looks of it, however, this isn't the case, and it would make sense to change this to be a namespace -- that way, one could use using Defines::constant; and similar.
Response to first edit: The global namespace is also a namespace, and it is more dangerous to pollute than other namespaces, as things are more likely to leak into it. In that sense, it is better to put the variables in a class, but still not as good as putting them in a namespace of their own.
Response to second edit: const char* Defines::StringN = "Somevalue"; in a header would lead to the constant being defined multiple times, and the program would fail to link. However, if you prepend an extern to that, and put the definition in a .cpp file, everything will be fine, and there should be no performance penalty.
For a few reasons:
You're not cluttering your namespace with potentially random constants.
You're adding meaning to both the class and the constants themselves by including them with their associated class.
If I were to define a global/namespace constant named NAME, then what is it associated with? If I added into the class itself, then you're forced to reference is with the class name, which adds meaning to the usage and makes the code more readable and less error prone.
Of course, this can be abused. You can misplace constants. You can improperly put truly global constants in specific classes. You can, in both cases, give bad names.
In general, there's no reason to use a type this way. I have seen it argued that if the "collection of constants" evolves into a concrete object, starting this way makes the transition easier. In practice, I've never seen this happen. It just hides intent, and potentially flutters the code with private constructors.
One could argue that classes work with templates, while namespaces do not. So something like the following would only work if Defines is a class:
template<typename T> int function() {
return T::x + T::y;
}
//later
cout << function<Defines>() << function<OtherDefines>() << endl;
In most cases, there's probably a redesign that would work better, particularly if all you have are "constants" that aren't really. Occasionally, this may come in handy, though.
At times, it can also fight argument dependent lookup. In brief, the compiler is allowed to expand it's search for eligable function names to different name namespaces based on the parameters passed to the function. This does not extend to static functions of a class. This applies more to the general case, though, where the "static class" also includes nested types and functions in addition to the collection of constants.
Why people do this varies. Some come from languages where can't be used this way, others just don't know any better.
For most things, it makes sense to give them the smallest scope possible. In this case its not so much an issue of visibility, but in clarity.
If you see String1 in a method, you have no idea where it came from. If you see Defines::String1, you can say "OK, this is a variable from the class Defines, let me go there and see what it is and what it's supposed to be". Looking in one class is a lot better than looking through an entire namespace that might even be spread across multiple source files. Obviously if the variable is in a class because its used primarily in that class, there's no doubt whatsoever that's that's where it should be. :D
Related
Let's say I have, or am going to write, a set of related functions. Let's say they're math-related. Organizationally, should I:
Write these functions and put them in my MyMath namespace and refer to them via MyMath::XYZ()
Create a class called MyMath and make these methods static and refer to the similarly MyMath::XYZ()
Why would I choose one over the other as a means of organizing my software?
By default, use namespaced functions.
Classes are to build objects, not to replace namespaces.
In Object Oriented code
Scott Meyers wrote a whole Item for his Effective C++ book on this topic, "Prefer non-member non-friend functions to member functions". I found an online reference to this principle in an article from Herb Sutter: http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/084.htm
The important thing to know is that: In C++, functions that are in the same namespace as a class is, and that have that class as a parameter, belong to that class' interface (because ADL will search those functions when resolving function calls).
For example:
let's say you have a namespace N
let's say you have a class C, declared in namespace N (in other words, its full name is N::C)
let's say you have a function F, declared in namespace N (in other words, its full name is N::F)
let's say that function F has, among its parameters, a parameter of type C
... Then N::F is part of N::C's public interface.
Namespaced functions, unless declared "friend," have no access to the class's internals, whereas static methods have the right to access the class's internals.
This means, for example, that when maintaining your class, if you need to change your class' internals, you will need to search for side effects in all its methods, including the static ones.
Extension I
Adding code to a class' interface.
In C#, you can add methods to a class even if you have no access to it. But in C++, this is impossible.
But, still in C++, you can still add a namespaced function, even to a class someone wrote for you.
See from the other side, this is important when designing your code, because by putting your functions in a namespace, you will authorize your users to increase/complete the class' interface.
Extension II
A side-effect of the previous point, it is impossible to declare static methods in multiple headers. Every method must be declared in the same class.
For namespaces, functions from the same namespace can be declared in multiple headers (the almost-standard swap function is the best example of that).
Extension III
The basic coolness of a namespace is that in some code, you can avoid mentioning it, if you use the keyword using:
#include <string>
#include <vector>
// Etc.
{
using namespace std ;
// Now, everything from std is accessible without qualification
string s ; // Ok
vector v ; // Ok
}
string ss ; // COMPILATION ERROR
vector vv ; // COMPILATION ERROR
And you can even limit the "pollution" to one class:
#include <string>
#include <vector>
{
using std::string ;
string s ; // Ok
vector v ; // COMPILATION ERROR
}
string ss ; // COMPILATION ERROR
vector vv ; // COMPILATION ERROR
This "pattern" is mandatory for the proper use of the almost-standard swap idiom.
And this is impossible to do with static methods in classes.
So, C++ namespaces have their own semantics.
But it goes further, as you can combine namespaces in a way similar to inheritance.
For example, if you have a namespace A with a function AAA, a namespace B with a function BBB, you can declare a namespace C, and bring AAA and BBB in this namespace with the keyword using.
You can even bring the full content of a namespace inside another, with using namespace, as shown with namespace D!
namespace A
{
void AAA();
void AAA2();
}
namespace B
{
void BBB();
}
namespace C
{
using A::AAA;
using B::BBB;
}
namespace D
{
using namespace A;
using namespace B;
}
void foo()
{
C::AAA();
// C::AAA2(); // ERROR, won't compile
C::BBB();
}
void bar()
{
D::AAA();
D::AAA2();
D::BBB();
}
Conclusion
Namespaces are for namespaces.
Classes are for classes.
C++ was designed so each concept is different, and is used differently, in different cases, as a solution to different problems.
Don't use classes when you need namespaces.
And in your case, you need namespaces.
There are a lot of people who would disagree with me, but this is how I see it:
A class is essentially a definition of a certain kind of object. Static methods should define operations that are intimately tied to that object definition.
If you are just going to have a group of related functions not associated with an underlying object or definition of a kind of object, then I would say go with a namespace only. Just for me, conceptually, this is a lot more sensible.
For instance, in your case, ask yourself, "What is a MyMath?" If MyMath does not define a kind of object, then I would say: don't make it a class.
But like I said, I know there are plenty of folks who would (even vehemently) disagree with me on this (in particular, Java and C# developers).
If you need static data, use static methods.
If they're template functions and you'd like to be able to specify a set of template parameters for all functions together then use static methods in a template class.
Otherwise, use namespaced functions.
In response to the comments: yes, static methods and static data tend to be over-used. That's why I offered only two, related scenarios where I think they can be helpful. In the OP's specific example (a set of math routines), if he wanted the ability to specify parameters - say, a core data type and output precision - that would be applied to all routines, he might do something like:
template<typename T, int decimalPlaces>
class MyMath
{
// routines operate on datatype T, preserving at least decimalPlaces precision
};
// math routines for manufacturing calculations
typedef MyMath<double, 4> CAMMath;
// math routines for on-screen displays
typedef MyMath<float, 2> PreviewMath;
If you don't need that, then by all means use a namespace.
You should use a namespace, because a namespace has the many advantages over a class:
You don't have to define everything in the same header
You don't need to expose all your implementation in the header
You can't using a class member; you can using a namespace member
You can't using class, though using namespace is not all that often a good idea
Using a class implies that there is some object to be created when there really is none
Static members are, in my opinion, very very overused. They aren't a real necessity in most cases. Static members functions are probably better off as file-scope functions, and static data members are just global objects with a better, undeserved reputation.
I would prefer namespaces, that way you can have private data in an anonymous namespace in the implementation file (so it doesn't have to show up in the header at all as opposed to private members). Another benefit is that by using your namespace the clients of the methods can opt out of specifying MyMath::
I want to summarize and add to other answers. Also, my perspective is in the world of header-only.
Namespaces
Pros:
simple solution for naming hierarchies
they carry no semantics, so it is simpler to read
can live in different files (headers)
can be extended
ADL
shortcut can be defined (using).
Plays well with operator overload
Can be used for branding (you can design your code and put a namespace over it without much though)
Cons:
everything is public
private things need unnamed namespace so it is not explicit
ADL (yes, some people despise ADL)
can be extended (this can be a bad thing, specially in combination with ADL, semantics of existing code can change by extending the namespace)
functions need to be defined (or declared) in order of use
Classes with static methods
Pros:
can have private components (function, variables) and they are explicitly marked.
classes can be friended
can be type-parametrized (templates)
can be template parameters themselves
can be instantiated
can be passed to functions (static functions behave like non-static method by default).
it is easier to find patterns and go from groups of independent functions and convert them to a proper class (eventually with non static members)
dependencies among classes is well defined
functions (the static method) can be defined in any order
Cons:
No ADL
cannot be extended
needs the keyword static everywhere (opportunity to make fun of the language)
an overkill to solve the naming problem alone. Difficult to read in that case.
the functions (static methods) always need qualification (myclassspace::fun). There is no way to declare shortcuts (using).
almost useless for operator overload, needs complicated friend mechanism for that.
can not be used for branding.
you need to remember end it with ; :)
In summary, classes with static methods are better units of code and allow more meta programming, and except for ADL and some syntactic quirks, can replicate all the features of namespaces, but they can be an overkill sometimes.
Companies, such as Bloomberg, prefer classes over namespaces.
If you don’t like ADL or operator overload, classes with static methods is the way to go.
IMO, it would be nice if namespace and classes are integrated to become two sides of the same coin.
For example identify a namespace in the language as a class were the methods are static by default.
And then be able to use them as template parameters.
I wouldn't be sure what to do with ADL (may be it could be restricted to symbolic operators functions alone, e.g. operatorX, which was the original motivation for operator overload and ADL in the first place)
Why would I choose one over the other as a means of organizing my software?
If you use namespaces, you will frequently hit a language defect that functions which call each other must be listed in a specific order, because C++ can't see definitions further down in the file.
If you use classes, this defect does not occur.
It can be easier and cleaner to wrap implementation functions in a class than to maintain declarations for them all or put them in an unnatural order to make it compile.
One more reason to use class - Option to make use of access specifiers. You can then possibly break your public static method into smaller private methods. Public method can call multiple private methods.
Both namespace and class method have their uses. Namespace have the ability to be spread across files however that is a weakness if you need to enforce all related code to go in one file. As mentioned above class also allows you to create private static members in the class. You can have it in the anonymous namespace of the implementation file however it is still a bigger scope than having them inside the class.
So far, I've been using classes the following way:
GameEngine.h declares the class as follows
class GameEngine {
public:
// Declaration of constructor and public methods
private:
InputManager inputManager;
int a, b, c;
// Declaration of private methods
};
My GameEngine.cpp files then just implement the methods
#include "____.h"
GameEngine::GameEngine() {
}
void GameEngine::run() {
// stuff
}
However, I've recently read that variable declarations are not supposed to be in the header file. In the above example, that would be an inputManager and a, b, c.
Now, I've been searching for where to put the variable declarations, the closest answer I found was this: Variable declaration in a header file
However, I'm not sure if the use of extern would make sense here; I just declare private variables that will only be used in an instance of the class itself. Are my variable declarations in the header files fine? Or should I put them elsewhere? If I should put them in the cpp file, do they go directly under the #include?
Don't confuse a type's members with variables. A class/struct definition is merely describing what constitutes a type, without actually declaring the existence of any variables, anything to be constructed on memory, anything addressable.
In the traditional sense, modern class design practices recommend you pretend they are "black boxes": stuff goes in, they can perform certain tasks, maybe output some other info. We do this with class methods all the time, briefly describing their signature on the .h/.hpp/.hxx file and hiding the implementation details in the .cpp/.cc/.cxx file.
While the same philosophy can be applied to members, the current state of C++, how translation units are compiled individually make this way harder to implement. There's certainly nothing "out of the box" that helps you here. The basic, fundamental problem is that for almost anything to use your class, it kind of needs to know the size in bytes, and this is something constrained by the member fields and the order of declaration. Even if they're private and nothing outside the scope of the type should be able to manipulate them, they still need to briefly know what they are.
If you actually want to hide this information to outsiders, certain idioms such as PImpl and inlined PImpl can help. But I'd recommend you don't go this way unless you're actually:
Writing a library with a semi-stable ABI, even if you make tons of changes.
Need to hide non-portable, platform-specific code.
Need to reduce pre-processor times due to an abundance of includes.
Need to reduce compile times directly impacted by this exposure of information.
What the guideline is actually talking about is to never declare global variables in headers. Any translation unit that takes advantage of your header, even if indirectly, will end up declaring its own global variable as per header instructions. Everything will compile just fine when examined individually, but the linker will complain that you have more than one definition for the same thing (which is a big no-no in C++)
If you need to reserve memory / construct something and bind it to a variable's name, always try to make that happen in the source file(s).
Class member variables must be declared in the class definition, which is usually in a header file. This should be done without any extern keywords, completely normally, like you have been doing so far.
Only variables that are not class members and that need to be declared in a header file should be declared extern.
As a general rule:
Variables that are to be used with many functions in the same class go in the class declaration.
Temporary variables for individual functions go in the functions themselves.
It seems that InputManager inputManager; belongs in the class header.
int a, b, c; is harder to know from here. What are they used for? They look like temporary variables that would be better off in the function(s) they're used in, but I can't say for sure without proper context.
extern has no use here.
Recently I've been taking a hard look at my programming style and how to improve it. Let me begin by saying that in my current role, I'm the sole programmer. As a result, I can make things as hacky as I want, but I'm really striving to become a better, more sound programmer.
Also, my background was mainly C based, with essentially using C++ as a super-set of C when necessary. As a result, I have stumbled across the following conundrum.
I have always defined error codes with something like #define ERROR_FUNCTION_BLEW_UP -2 . In honesty, I can see the benefits of doing so since I don't have to allocate the memory to store -2. However, in C++ I can see the benefit of using a const variable since there's less chances of collisions between two competing macros.
As a result, I was wondering what the cleanest way is to implement error codes in C++. Namely, I'd like to have the client be able to check the return value of certain functions by doing something analogous to "if (return_value == ERROR_FUNCTION_BLEW_UP)". I've tried adding a const variable in each class, but then the code doesn't look right. That is, the client now checks something along the lines of "if (return_value == MyClass.kErrorFunctionBlewUp_)". Is there a cleaner way of accomplishing this, rather than having the constant be a public member of the class?
Also, to add onto my question, myClass is a base class, and now I want to add more error codes in MyDerivedClass. What's the best way of going about this and avoiding macros?
Thank you all for your help.
Use enums:
enum Errors
{
NO_ERROR = 0,
FUNCTION_BLEW_UP,
WTF_THIS_SHOULDNT_HAPPEN,
};
Also, consider using exceptions (look into std::exception) if they're more appropriate.
If you really want to just replace your macros, replace them with a constant. A constant has internal linkage (i.e. restricted to the translation unit ("file")) so the compiler can easily replace their use with just the constant inline and without using a single byte more or less than for a macro. Note that it is customary to keep ALL_UPPERCASE to macros, because macros don't follow normal code conventions, so you'd have to change that, too.
Then, in C++, you don't generally use returncodes that the caller has to check but exceptions which propagate automatically. If you want to keep the errorcodes, you can use an enumeration or constants and put them into a namespace. Note that enumerations leak into the surrounding namespace or class, which makes it preferable to wrap them up one level:
namespace errorcode
{
enum type
{
printer_on_fire,
volume_not_formatted,
bluescreen
};
}
Exceptions do sometimes contain error codes that further specify what failed though. Here's one way to specify them:
struct error:
std::runtime_error
{
...
enum code
{
printer_on_fire,
volume_not_formatted,
bluescreen
};
code fault;
};
Note that you don't have to nest the code, you can also build the exception type with the existing errorcode::type above. Some nesting is useful though, because enumerations otherwise pollute the surrounding namespace.
That said, you ask "do I place it at the top of the file before the class", but here you have a misconception. Firstly, not every file contains a class. Then, not every file that contains a class contains exactly one of them. For example, if the collection of errorcodes is used by a whole class hierarchy it makes sense to define it in a separate file to make clear that it doesn't belong to just one of them and that it can be used in related non-class functions, too. In that file, you would also stick e.g. a function to convert it to a string for debugging and maybe the exception type carrying one of them.
I've grouped several message strings into a named (non anonymous) namespace in the .cpp file for a class handling output as seen in the code below:
namespace Messages
{
static const std::string AppTitle = "The Widgetizer - Serving all your Widget needs";
static const std::string SuccessMsg = "Great success! Widgets for all! ";
static const std::string FailMsg = "No widgets for you!";
};
void Display::printTitle()
{
out << Messages::AppTitle << std::endl;
}
void Display::printSuccessMsg()
{
out << Messages::SuccessMsg << std::endl;
}
void Display::printFailMsg()
{
out << Messages::FailMsg << std::endl;
}
My logic being that this way they're all in one central location, under a namespace with a meaningful and self-documenting name, and they're not exposed to the client code (as they would be if I had put the namespace in the .h file).
Is this a good practice generally or are there pitfalls to this that I'm not seeing?
Is the static keyword necessary if they're in a file scope namespace like this?
In terms of best practices and accepted C++ idiom & style, would this be better off just as an anonymous namespace? Or simply as static const class members?
I admit it's probably overkill for the small program I'm writing since they'll probably only be used in these functions but generally speaking not hard coding message strings is a good habit no?
It's okay I guess, you won't lose any points for this. I don't care much for the term "best practice", it is not a common practice. A lot of programs are written with localization in mind, there's several billion potential customers that don't understand a word of English. No standard C++ solution for that, just common practices on your platform. Like string resources.
Is this a good practice generally or are there pitfalls to this that I'm not seeing?
Grouping related objects in a namespace is good practice if it makes the code clearer; there aren't any particular pitfalls, but deeply nested namespaces can lead to excessively verbose code if you're not careful.
Is the static keyword necessary if they're in a file scope namespace like this?
You need either static or const to give them internal linkage, but it might be better to enclose your namespace in an unnamed namespace instead. Using static at namespace scope is deprecated, and just using const means you'll get a surprise if someone declares extern objects with the same names.
In terms of best practices and accepted C++ idiom & style, would this be better off just as an anonymous namespace? Or simply as static const class members?
If grouping them in a named namespace makes the code more expressive, then do it; otherwise, don't. I'd prefer not to make them class members unless necessary, to avoid adding unnecessary declarations to the header file.
Is this a good practice generally or
are there pitfalls to this that I'm
not seeing?
It don't seem to be any problem with using namespace to do this.
I often see that putting constant values and global configuration variables in namespace (might they be accessed outside of the definition cpp or not) is a good practice. That way you don't have to create a class just for grouping and you still have the name encapsulation working nice.
Is the static keyword necessary if
they're in a file scope namespace like
this?
It's not necessary.
In terms of best practices and accepted C++ idiom & style, would this be better off just as an anonymous namespace? Or simply as static const class members?
Static class member would be overkill and non-sense. If you don't need an instance, don't write a class.
Anonymous namespace would be useful only if the code is limited to a specific CPP file.
I admit it's probably overkill for the small program I'm writing since they'll probably only be used in these functions but generally speaking not hard coding message strings is a good habit no?
Following the DRY principle, it looks like you've done well, even for a small program and even if you think your constants will be used only once. Because in the end you never know what the future is made of.
This is okay if you desire the clarity.
My preference would generally be either:
To define file level static variables without the name space (these are always near the top of the file for me).
To define an anonymous namespace and use non-static variables.
Put the definitions in a private part of my subsystem in their own file, complete with header file.
In a particular case that I did use the method you describe it was a mistake. I had fairly large file 3000+ lines with a number of internal classes. In retrospect I should have put my scoped classes into separate files in the internal part of my subsystem.
Generally I prefer 1 or 2 for simple things and 3 for complicated/large things.
I occasionally have classes with private static data members. I'm currently debating if I should replace these with static variables in an unnamed namespace in the implementation file. Other that not being able to use these variables in inline methods, are there any other drawbacks? The advantage that I see is that is hides them completely from the users of the class.
I'm not convinced that the benefit is worth the readability impact. I generally consider something that's private to be "hidden enough."
1) There is a drawback in the form of an added restriction on binary organization. In a presentation at a C++ conference in the 1990s, Walter Bright reported achieving significant performance increases by organizing his code so that functions that called each other were in the same compilation unit. For example, if during execution Class1::method1 made far more calls to Class2 methods than to other Class1::methods, defining Class1::method1 in class2.cpp meant that Class1::method1 would be on the same code page as the methods it was calling, and thus less likely to be delayed by a page fault. This kind of refactoring is easier to undertake with class statics than with file statics.
2) One of the arguments against introducing the namespace keyword was "You can do the same thing with a class," and you will see class and struct being used as a poor-man's namespace in sources from the pre-namespace era. The convincing counter-argument was because namespaces are re-openable, and any function anywhere can make itself part of a namespace or access a foreign namespace, then there were things you could do with a namespace that you could not do with a class. This has bearing on your question because it suggests that the language committee was thinking of namespace scope as very much like class scope; this reduces the chance that there is some subtle linguistic trap in using an anonymous namespace instead of a class static.
I disagree with the other answers. Keep as much out of the class
definition as possible.
In Scott Meyers' Effective C++ 3rd edition he recommends preferring non-friend
functions to class methods. In this way the class definition is as
small as possible, the private data is accessed in as few places as
possible (encapsulated).
Following this principle further leads to the pimpl idiom. However,
balance is needed. Make sure your code is maintainable. Blindly,
following this rule would lead you to make all your private methods
file local and just pass in the needed members as parameters. This
would improve encapsulation, but destroy maintainability.
All that said, file local objects are very hard to unit test. With
some clever hacking you can access private members during unit tests.
Accessing file local objects is a bit more involved.
It not only hides them from users of the class, it hides them from you! If these variables are part of the class, they should be associated with the class in some way.
Depending on what you are going to do with them, you could consider making them static variables inside static member functions:
// header file
class A {
public:
static void func();
};
// cpp file
void A :: func() {
static int avar = 0;
// do something with avar
}
I guess it boils down to whether these variables have some actual meaning in the context of the class (e.g., pointer to some common memory used by all objects) or just some temporary data you need to pass around between methods and would rather not clutter the class with. In the latter case I would definitely go with the unnamed namespace. In the former, I'd say it's a matter of personal taste.
I agree partly with Greg, in that unnamed namespace members aren't any more encapsulated than private data. The point of encapsulation, after all, is to hide implementation details from other modules, not from other programmers. Nevertheless, I do think there are some cases where this is a useful technique.
Consider a class like the following:
class Foo {
public:
...
private:
static Bar helper;
};
In this case, any module that wants to use Foo must also know the definition of Bar even though that definition is of no relevance what-so-ever. These sort of header dependencies lead to more frequent and lengthier rebuilds. Moving the definition of helper to an unnamed namespace in Foo.cpp is a great way to break that dependency.
I also disagree strongly with the notion that unnamed namespaces are somehow less readable or less maintainable than static data members. Stripping irrelevant information from your header only makes it more concise.