static data members

Depending on exactly what you are trying to do, static would certainly seems to be a good choice to achieving that goal. If you find this complicated, then any other way might look even more complicated.

So let say this common variable really belongs on that class and it's an int. In the header file you just declare it static.



static private int m_iStaticType.


and in the cpp file, you initialize it, otherwise it will give you a linker error

int MyClass::m_iStaticType = 0;

Pretty easy stuff :)

Cheers,

Shadx

In this case, static is sufficient.

Kuphryn

Would the int MyClass::m_iStaticType = 0; go in the cpp of the class or the app?

Quote:

Original post by sipickles Would the int MyClass::m_iStaticType = 0; go in the cpp of the class or the app?

The .cpp file for the class.

/* THING.H file */#ifndef THING_H#define THING_Hclass Thing{  public:    Thing();    ~Thing();    static int GetRefCount();  private:    static int m_refcount;};#endif

-

/* THING.CPP file */#include "thing.h"int Thing::m_refcount = 0;Thing::Thing(){  m_refcount += 1;}Thing::~Thing(){  m_refcount -= 1;}int Thing::GetRefCount(){  return m_refcount;}

This is one of the best examples of how to do static class members.

Quote:

Original post by Inmate2993 This is one of the best examples of how to do static class members.

Your code is counting the number of instances of the class rather than the number of references to a particular instance. The name of the variable is a bit misleading and certainly nothing to do with the usual idea of reference counting.

I guess my identifier is a bit vauge. Well, you'd have to do some operator overloading to do actual reference counting, which is beyond the scope of this thread.