Initialize static variables in C++ class? - c++

I have noticed that some of my functions in a class are actually not accessing the object, so I made them static. Then the compiler told me that all variables they access must also be static – well, quite understandable so far. I have a bunch of string variables such as
string RE_ANY = "([^\\n]*)";
string RE_ANY_RELUCTANT = "([^\\n]*?)";
and so on in the class. I have then made them all static const because they never change. However, my program only compiles if I move them out of the class: Otherwise, MSVC++2010 complains "Only static constant integral variables may be initialized within a class".
Well that's unfortunate. Is there a workaround? I would like to leave them inside the class they belong to.

They can't be initialised inside the class, but they can be initialised outside the class, in a source file:
// inside the class
class Thing {
static string RE_ANY;
static string RE_ANY_RELUCTANT;
};
// in the source file
string Thing::RE_ANY = "([^\\n]*)";
string Thing::RE_ANY_RELUCTANT = "([^\\n]*?)";
Update
I've just noticed the first line of your question - you don't want to make those functions static, you want to make them const. Making them static means that they are no longer associated with an object (so they can't access any non-static members), and making the data static means it will be shared with all objects of this type. This may well not be what you want. Making them const simply means that they can't modify any members, but can still access them.

Mike Seymour has given you the right answer, but to add...
C++ lets you declare and define in your class body only static const integral types, as the compiler tells. So you can actually do:
class Foo
{
static const int someInt = 1;
static const short someShort = 2;
// etc.
};
And you can't do that with any other type, in that cases you should define them in your .cpp file.

Some answers including even the accepted answer seem to be a little misleading.
You don't have to
Always assign a value to static objects when initializing because that's optional.
Create another .cpp file for initializing since it can be done in the same header file.
You can even initialize a static object in the same class scope just like a normal variable using the inline keyword.
Initialize with no values in the same file
#include <string>
class A
{
static std::string str;
static int x;
};
std::string A::str;
int A::x;
Initialize with values in the same file
#include <string>
class A
{
static std::string str;
static int x;
};
std::string A::str = "SO!";
int A::x = 900;
Initialize in the same class scope using the inline keyword
#include <string>
class A
{
static inline std::string str = "SO!";
static inline int x = 900;
};

Since C++11 it can be done inside a class with constexpr.
class stat {
public:
// init inside class
static constexpr double inlineStaticVar = 22;
};
The variable can now be accessed with:
stat::inlineStaticVar

Static member variables must be declared in the class and then defined outside of it!
There's no workaround, just put their actual definition in a source file.
From your description it smells like you're not using static variables the right way. If they never change you should use constant variable instead, but your description is too generic to say something more.
Static member variables always hold the same value for any instance of your class: if you change a static variable of one object, it will change also for all the other objects (and in fact you can also access them without an instance of the class - ie: an object).

I feel it is worth adding that a static variable is not the same as a constant variable.
using a constant variable in a class
struct Foo{
const int a;
Foo(int b) : a(b){}
}
and we would declare it like like so
fooA = new Foo(5);
fooB = new Foo(10);
// fooA.a = 5;
// fooB.a = 10;
For a static variable
struct Bar{
static int a;
Foo(int b){
a = b;
}
}
Bar::a = 0; // set value for a
which is used like so
barA = new Bar(5);
barB = new Bar(10);
// barA.a = 10;
// barB.a = 10;
// Bar::a = 10;
You see what happens here. The constant variable, which is instanced along with each instance of Foo, as Foo is instanced has a separate value for each instance of Foo, and it can't be changed by Foo at all.
Where as with Bar, their is only one value for Bar::a no matter how many instances of Bar are made. They all share this value, you can also access it with their being any instances of Bar. The static variable also abides rules for public/private, so you could make it that only instances of Bar can read the value of Bar::a;

Just to add on top of the other answers. In order to initialize a complex static member, you can do it as follows:
Declare your static member as usual.
// myClass.h
class myClass
{
static complexClass s_complex;
//...
};
Make a small function to initialize your class if it's not trivial to do so. This will be called just the one time the static member is initialized. (Note that the copy constructor of complexClass will be used, so it should be well defined).
//class.cpp
#include myClass.h
complexClass initFunction()
{
complexClass c;
c.add(...);
c.compute(...);
c.sort(...);
// Etc.
return c;
}
complexClass myClass::s_complex = initFunction();

If your goal is to initialize the static variable in your header file (instead of a *.cpp file, which you may want if you are sticking to a "header only" idiom), then you can work around the initialization problem by using a template. Templated static variables can be initialized in a header, without causing multiple symbols to be defined.
See here for an example:
Static member initialization in a class template

Optionally, move all your constants to .cpp file without declaration in .h file. Use anonymous namespace to make them invisible beyond the cpp module.
// MyClass.cpp
#include "MyClass.h"
// anonymous namespace
namespace
{
string RE_ANY = "([^\\n]*)";
string RE_ANY_RELUCTANT = "([^\\n]*?)";
}
// member function (static or not)
bool MyClass::foo()
{
// logic that uses constants
return RE_ANY_RELUCTANT.size() > 0;
}

Related

C++ class static struct member definition

I have not found a way to initialize the class member succesfully inside the constructor and I can not figure out why.
I have a header file:
#pragma once
struct STATE_MOUSE {
bool moving;
int left_button;
int right_button;
int middle_button;
bool scroll_up;
bool scroll_down;
};
class Message {
private:
static STATE_MOUSE state_mouse;
public:
Message();
~Message();
};
Then I have a source file:
#include "message.hpp"
STATE_MOUSE Message::state_mouse = {false, 0, 0, 0, false, false};
Message::Message() {
//Would like to initialize state_mouse here somehow.
}
Message::~Message() {
}
Now to the issue. This set up seems to work. However I am used to initialize members inside a constructor and I have not found a way to do that with this static struct member.
The following method does not work, could someone explain why?
state_mouse.moving = false;
When you declare a member as static it will belong to the class with only one instance and not to the objects of the class, therefore you cannot initialize it inside the constructor. The constructor is a special member function which mainly exists to initialize the non static members of a new object.
Note that a static member is shared by all objects of the class and when an object changes it, the change can be seen from all other objects of the same class. If this is what do you want to achieve, then the method you shown is good.
Static member variables are not associated with each object of the class. It is shared by all objects.
If you declare a static variable inside the class then you should define it in the cpp file, otherwise, you can get error undefined reference.
Note that if the static member variable is of const int type (e.g. int, bool, char), you can then declare and initialize the member variable directly inside the class declaration in the header file.

what's the proper way to declare static mutable values

I've got a mutable static value in my program.
static int foo = 0;
regardless of private or public accessibility I don't want nasty name collisions.
I don't like things just sitting in the scope of my namespace.
So I tried the following
class aClass{
static int foo = 0;
}
Apperantly this is impossible, unless I don't assign a variable to foo.
Which is impossible for foo in my program.
What is the standard on declaring mutable statics with a default value?
I read something about people using const <T>* but that doesn't sound sane to me, and seems prone to error.
how about header:
class aClass {
static int foo;
}
cpp file
int aClass::foo;
you can then add an initialisation if you want to there.

How to retain value of static variable inside a same class which has 2 implementations

I have to call a static functions inside a class(say UserApp) which returns static value.
Class Definition and declaration done in 2 files.
File1.h:
userApp(){
static int* foo;
}
file1.cpp:
{
int* userApp::foo = 0;
...
.
.
foo = somevar;
}
The same class(userApp) is implemented in file2 and to avoid linkage error I'm forced to declare and define the static variable in file2 as well.
In file 2.cpp as userApp::foo is initialized to 0 , the return value of function getFoo is always zero.
I need the value associated to foo in file1.
Is there any way I can avoid defining static variable in file2?
Thanks in advance.
What a mess :D
If I understood you right, I believe you have to declare the static member as extern in one of the files, to indicate it's actually referencing to a variable declared elsewhere.
In UserApp.h:
class UserApp {
private:
static int* foo_;
public:
static int* getFoo() { return foo_; }
};
In UserApp.cpp:
#include "UserApp.h"
int* UserApp::foo_ = NULL;
In any other where you need to use it:
#include "UserApp.h"
...
int* foo = UserApp::getFoo();
You haven't provided any details about your namespace / class full of static things, but consider making more OO design or in case it seems reasonable to keep it in one class, consider implementing a singleton that would also allow you to hold the information about its state in more reasonable way. (you might end up with something like this)

Static functions and arrays in a class

i have like 5 erros when trying to compile the code below.
it's like:THey are mainly pointing on static string rzym and static int arab.
the main errors:
In arab2rzym function:
- : invalid use of member ‘RzymArab::arab’ in static member function
- : error: from this location
- : error: invalid use of member ‘RzymArab::arab’ in static member function
- : invalid use of member ‘RzymArab::rzym’ in static member function
- : cannot declare member function ‘static std::string RzymArab::arab2rzym(int)’ to have static linkage [-fpermissive]
Here is the code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class RzymArab
{
private:
string rzym[13] = {"I","IV","V","IX","X","XL","L","XC","C","CD","D","CM","M"};
int arab[13] = {1,4,5,9,10,40,50,90,100,400,500,900,1000};
public:
static int rzym2arab(string);
static string arab2rzym(int);
};
static string RzymArab::arab2rzym(int x)
{
int i=12;
string s="";
while(x>=1)
{
if(x>=arab[i])
{
x-=arab[i];
s=s+rzym[i];
}
else
i-=1;
}
return s;
}
int main()
{
string x;
x=RzymArab.arab2rzym(1164);
cout<<x<<endl;
return 0;
}
I would be grateful for helping!I tired some things but still bunch of errors. I want to use elements from class without creating an object.Any ideas?
You can't access non static class member variables from static member functions. You'll need to make them static also:
class RzymArab {
private:
static string rzym[13];
static int arab[13];
public:
static int rzym2arab(string);
static string arab2rzym(int);
};
Also those need to be defined separately (in your class' .cpp file usually):
string RzymArab::rzym[13] =
{"I","IV","V","IX","X","XL","L","XC","C","CD","D","CM","M"};
int RzymArab::arab[13] = {1,4,5,9,10,40,50,90,100,400,500,900,1000};
Additionally note you don't use the static keyword for the (non inline) definition of your static function (it's invalid syntax). Just write:
string RzymArab::arab2rzym(int x) {
// ...
}
See the fully fixed, compilable and running sample here please.
The deal with class (also known as "static") vs. instance member functions is that an instance member function can access both static and instance members (variables and functions), while static member functions can access only static members. That is why you need to make the
int arab[13]; // The initializer needs to go into cpp file
string rzym[13];
member static in the class:
static int arab[13];
static string rzym[13];
The initializer needs to go to the cpp file:
// This goes into the CPP file
int RzymArab::arab[13] = {1,4,5,9,10,40,50,90,100,400,500,900,1000};
string RzymArab::rzym[13] = {"I","IV","V","IX","X","XL","L","XC","C","CD","D","CM","M"};
Finally, you refer to static members with the scope resolution operator ::, not with a dot:
x=RzymArab::arab2rzym(1164);
I method that is declared static cannot access data members in the class.
Perhaps you should drop static everywhere?
You cannot access non-static members of a class from a static method of the same class without an object of that class. Non-static members exist only within the context of an object and cannot be access from static methods, that have class scope.
So you either:
make all members static
make all members non-static
pass an object to the static methods used to access the non-static members
Also notice that the static keyword is only necessary when declaring the function, not when you define it.
It isn't possible. A static method can only access other shared things (variables, other methods, etc.).
Example:
Say we have a Square class. You can create an object by passing the height and width into the constructor.
Square mySquare(2,2)
The Square class has a method for getting the area of the object. So you would call it as so:
double area = mySquare.getArea();
That works and all because you are using the instance variables for that specific object's height and width to calculate it. But lets say we want to calculate the area of a square before we create the object to make sure it's valid. So we would call the static getArea(double w, double h) method that is in the Square class.
double area = Square.getArea(2,4);
This works. But if you tried to call the getArea() method (that doesn't have parameters) would give you an error because it wouldn't know what height and width to use because they haven't been defined yet.
double area = Square.getArea(); //This will give you an error.
Hope this helps.

static constant members for array size

MyClass.h
class MyClass
{
public:
static const int cTotalCars;
private:
int m_Cars[cTotalCars];
};
MyClass.cpp
#include "MyClass.h"
const int MyClass::cTotalCars = 5;
The above code doesn't work because it will say "expected constant expression" for the m_Cars array.
class MyClass
{
public:
static const int cTotalCars = 5;
private:
int m_Cars[cTotalCars];
};
The above will work, but I am told that I should always define static members in the CPP file, outside the class definition. What can I do?
Static const members of simple type are a exception to that rule, so you latter code is correct.
This exception is a fairly modern one (from C++98, but not implemented by every compiler until a few years later) so many old-fashioned teachers are not yet aware of it. They prefer the idiom:
class MyClass
{
public:
enum { cTotalCars = 5 };
private:
int m_Cars[cTotalCars];
};
That behaves exactly the same, but makes little sense nowadays.
The above will work, but I am told that I should always define static members in the CPP file, outside the class definition. What can I do?
Well, what you have been suggested to do: define the static members in the CPP. Note that in the code above the static member is not defined even if the value is stated. The proper final code would look like:
// .h (ignoring all but the static member)
class MyClass {
static const int cTotalCars = 5; // declaration and initialization
};
// .cpp
static const int MyClass::cTotalCars; // definition (cannot have value!)
The definition in the .cpp file is what actually reserves the space for the variable when used as an lvalue. For a simple test that verifies that without that line the variable is not defined you can do:
void f( const int & x ) {}
int main() {
f( MyClass::cTotalCars );
}
Without the line in the .cpp file the code above will trigger a linker error pointing to the missing definition of MyClass::cTotalCars. The problem with the code is that it uses the static const member (by the definition of use in the standard), and that requires the member to be defined. While the case of using the constant to define the array size does not constitute use.
I would rather use a #define C_TOTAL_CARS 5, then static const int cTotalCars = C_TOTAL_CARS; and then also, int m_Cars[C_TOTAL_CARS];.
If is was a static int you would need to place it into the .cpp file. You do not need the keyword static in this instance as all you want is a constant. Just use const int cTotalCars = 5;. It is better than #define as you have type info and also it has a symbol that can be viewed in a debugger.
It just can't works if you define size of the array is set in cpp file. All class clients should know the size of class instance but they just have no idea about .cpp file because you only put #include "MyClass.h" in client-files.
In other words - your class definition is varies depending on the cpp-file which is not used while compile files that uses MyClass.