thanks Aescleal :)

It will be very much appreciated if someone can throw some light on this.

Some suggestions: Use typedefs: typedef multimap<char,int> char2int; typedef char2int::iterator char2map_it; char2map mymm; char2map_it it,it1,it2; pair<char2map_it, char2map_it> ret; There's no need to repeat long type names all over the place. One design decision should, if possible, be expressed in one place (or as few as possible): Now I can change from a map from chars to ints to a map from chars to std::strings by changing one line, for example. Use make_pair from #include <utility>: mymm.insert(make_pair('a', 10)); None of this is related to your question... Steve

I mean I was confused by this thread, but now I'm beginning to understand, thanks to your comments. It's time for a new signature.

sampath-padamatinti wrote: The simple example for this is when ever you are trying to create a static variable inside a class it gives an error. What does this mean? It is quite correct to have static variables in a class: they are known as class variables. sampath-padamatinti wrote: That is the memory is allocated to class variables at run time. No, class variables are allocated at compile time. sampath-padamatinti wrote: both the things are contradiction. :confused:

akashag wrote: 1. Does this type of code may cause some warnings or other issues? Compile it and see...neither gcc nor VC++ seem to give any warnings. akashag wrote: 2. Is it an optimized approach or do I need to save the value returned by foo()? You don't need to save the return value...but you then have to ask yourself - why am I calling the function? Doers it have other, non-visible side-effects? Obviously, this simple case doesn't, but many functions do effect some form of global data, while class methods can obviously update object instance data. Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p