static-members

I've found myself that I tend not to have private class functions. If possible, all candidates to private class function rather I put in to unnamed namespace and pass all necessary information as function parameters. I don't have a sound explanation why I'm doing that but at least it looks more naturally to me. As a consequence I need to expose less internal details in the header file. What is your opinion - is it correct practice? In the semi large projects where I usually work (more than 2 million lines of code) I would ban private class functions if I could. The reason being that a private

How do you decide between writing a function inside a module or as a static member of some type? For example, in the source code of F#, there are lots of types that are defined along with a equally named module, as follows: type MyType = // ... [<CompilationRepresentation(CompilationRepresentationFlags.ModuleSuffix)>] module MyType = // ... Why don't you simply define the operations as static members of type MyType? Here are some notes about the technical distinctions. Modules can be 'open'ed (unless they have RequireQualifiedAccessAttribute). That is, if you put functions ( F and G ) in a

I'm trying to create a generic function that removes duplicates from an std::vector. Since I don't want to create a function for each vector type, I want to make this a template function that can accept vectors of any type. Here is what I have: //foo.h Class Foo { template<typename T> static void RemoveVectorDuplicates(std::vector<T>& vectorToUpdate); }; //foo.cpp template<typename T> void Foo::RemoveVectorDuplicates(std::vector<T>& vectorToUpdate) { for(typename T::iterator sourceIter = vectorToUpdate.begin(); (sourceIter != vectorToUpdate.end() - 1); sourceIter++) { for(typename T::iterator

My code is Arduinoish. I turned on verbose compiling so I could verify that all the .o files are indeed getting passed to the linker correctly, and they are (linker command below). This leads me to believe that it is some sort of syntax error. Googling for the error "undefined reference to in function" produces a lot of results with answers like "add foo.o to your linker command like so", etc. I hope the solution is as simple as a missing dot or -> somewhere. I'm getting this series of errors in one file, from the linker: SerialServoControl.cpp.o: In function `SerialServoControl::send(int, int

I am trying to initialize a static object without success. The purpose is to automatically register a factory class in a repository (which is a singleton). I've already had a look at: How to force a static member to be initialized? One of the comments says that (there is also an example that I've followed): I read it up in the C++ standard (14.7.1): Unless a member of a class template or a member template has been explicitly instantiated or explicitly specialized, the specialization of the member is implicitly instantiated when the specialization is referenced in a context that requires the

Use case: class A { static int s_common; public: static int getCommon () const { s_common; }; }; Typically this results in an error as: error: static member function ‘static int A::getCommon()’ cannot have cv-qualifier This is because const ness applies only to the object pointed by this , which is not present in a static member function. However had it been allowed, the static member function's "const"ness could have been easily related to the static data members. Why is this feature is not present in C++; any logical reason behind it ? cv-qualifiers affect the function's signature. So you