static variable

[ThatsAlok]

Josh Gray wrote:

I'd say it smells like bad design, the only reason to return a pointer rather than a copy of the int is to allow some other code to modify it. I'd rather provide a method to allow other code to modify the static.

sorry to interrupt you.. it's somewhat Singleton pattern...! so i don't think it bad design.. though it break OOPS basic concept of encapsulation and abstraction!

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture

cheers, Alok Gupta VC Forum Q&A :- I/IV Support CRY- Child Relief and You

[Lost User]

ThatsAlok wrote:

i don't think it bad design.. though it break OOPS basic concept of encapsulation and abstraction!

Which to me makes it bad design. You can still have the static and therefore the singleton pattern but my comments was more about how you expose the interface to it. Returning the address of what is basically a private variable is bad.

[George_George]

Thanks Josh,

Josh Gray wrote:

I'd rather provide a method to allow other code to modify the static.

I agree with most points of you. But I do not quite understand your above points. Could you show me a sample please about how to modify the static variable please? I am wondering how to modify the value of the static variable from other function (other than from the function in which it is defined)? regards, George

[George_George]

Thanks Josh, I can generally understand and agree with your points. But I am confused about some details. Could you show us your points by a couple of lines of code please? regards, George

[George_George]

Thanks Alok! How do you think returning static variable is similar to Singleton pattern? Any more details about how similar points do they have? regards, George

[Lost User]

George_George wrote:

I am wondering how to modify the value of the static variable from other function (other than from the function in which it is defined)?

Sorry, my mistake as you cant do that. You can however define a static in a class and access it from any of the methods in that class. Even const methods!

[George_George]

Thanks Alok! If you think static variable is different from local or global variables, how do you think static variable is stored and managed so that the value is reserved each time we enters the function in which the static variable is defined? regards, George

[George_George]

Hi Josh, I think you mean static member of a class. But I mean a static variable defined inside a function. regards, George

[Lost User]

George_George wrote:

I think you mean static member of a class. But I mean a static variable defined inside a function.

Yes you are right which makes me wonder why you have global methods? I suspect there is probably a better to solution to what you are trying to do but its hard to suggest anything without knowing more about what you are doing and in what context

[ThatsAlok]

George_George wrote:

How do you think returning static variable is similar to Singleton pattern

just on basic.. concept of Singleton pattern says that.. there should only copy exist for any variable.. look more in detail here:- http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/singletonrvs.asp[^]

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture

cheers, Alok Gupta VC Forum Q&A :- I/IV Support CRY- Child Relief and You

[George_George]

Thanks Josh, You are right. I am writing a part of the application in C (not C++). I am wondering and willing to listen to your comments and ideas of any disadvantages if I return the address of static variable defined in a function, then let other part of code to access the variable by the returned address. regards, George

[George_George]

Thanks Alok, The similarity you mean is only one copy of data? regards, George

[Lost User]

George_George wrote:

You are right. I am writing a part of the application in C (not C++). I am wondering and willing to listen to your comments and ideas of any disadvantages if I return the address of static variable defined in a function, then let other part of code to access the variable by the returned address.

Well you could make the static global rather than defining it within a function then have two function to get and set its value but thats just an attempt to make a procedural language more OO.

[BadKarma]

This is a very interresting article about the use and the concept of the static keyword clickety[^]

codito ergo sum

[George_George]

Thanks Josh, I can understand and agree that your approach works. But when we come back to my approach, returning address of function *local* static variable, are there any disadvantages? regards, George

[George_George]

Thanks BadKarma, If I mean local static function variable, and if I use the address of the variable as the return value, then access the address outside the function (read/write). Does this approach have any disadvantages? regards, George

[BadKarma]

Whether this is a bad design or a good one, depends on the place where you use this. So you should think carefully where to implement. There is however on big disadvantage to this design. The function isn't thread safe. This means that when called from multiple threads the behavior will be unpredictable.

codito ergo sum

[George_George]

Thanks BadKarma,

BadKarma wrote:

This means that when called from multiple threads the behavior will be unpredictable

Could you provide more detailed scenario to describe why it is not thread safe please? regards, George

[toxcct]

do you know what thread safe means ? can't you search the web before asking dumb questions like you know doing very well, and weighting the forum for nothing ? returning the address of a local static variable isn't thread safe simply means that if a thread is calling the function (so, potentially being modifying the variable value), but another thread is modifying the variable at the same time, using the direct access through its address, you cannot ensure of the final value of the variable... when both threads write at the same place at the same time, the one which wrote the memory at last wins the game... ps: so i see you keep playing with the voting system... be very careful when voting my posts. they can just explode on you face, but then don't ever wonder why :p

---

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

[codeII]

int& MyFunction( ) { static int localStatic = 0; int nMyArray[ 10 ]; if ( localStatic < 10 ) { //localStatic is not guaranteed < 10 nMyArray[ localStatic ] = 1; } return localStatic; } When one tread comes inside the “if statement” another tread could have set localStatic to for instance 11. If you want to use a variable outside the scope of the function why are you not using a global? When using a static in a function this “means” that the function is responsible for this variable. And it cannot, when this variable is managed outside this function. Keeping strict rules provides confusing situations, In terms of who is modifying what. Another thing you should know is that when you are using a static within a class function, different instances of this class would use the same static instance; this can cause problems like the tread example above. Using globals: In header: extern int g_MyVar; In cpp int g_MyVar = 0; or when possible using a local variable giving to the function void MyFunction( int& nValue ) { nValue++; … } int nValue = 0; MyFunction( nValue );