Well, it's a terrible practice because you introduce high coupling
between otherwise unrelated pieces of code. This breaks the
code encapsulation and thus goes counter to OO design principles.
--
=====================================
Alexander Nickolov
Microsoft MVP [VC], MCSD
email: agnickolov@mvps.org
MVP VC FAQ: http://vcfaq.mvps.org
=====================================
"George" <George@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E011562A-3C56-4D6B-A0D6-A89518CF03EC@microsoft.com...
Thanks Jim,
Good answer! I have a further question about programming best practice.
Do
you think it is safe to let the address of the *local* static variable
as
the
return value of a function? Then other part of code (out of this
function)
will access or even modify the variable by the returned address of the
*local* static variable?
Any disadvantages of this approach?
Example,
int* func()
{
static int i;
// other code
return &i;
}
regards,
George
"Jim Langston" wrote:
"George" <George@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B26304FA-E4ED-48A9-89B9-B1DA6B8FA870@microsoft.com...
Hello everyone,
I am wondering how C or C++ manages static variable internally.
Since
each
time when we again a function again, if in this function, a static
variable
is defined, the value will be the value last time when we entered
this
function (i.e. will not be initialized again, and only initialized
at
the
1st
time).
I suspect it is stored in some global structure to reserve the
value?
The implementation can do it however it wants, as long as it does it.
I
would guess it stores the value in the same place it stores other
global
variables, but has someway to know what function/method/class it
belongs
to.
Maybe it mangles the name with the function name in front.
Foo@Variable
or
something.