CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++static-functions
Luis
Luis

Reputation: 127

Static function from static function

I have a class with non static functions. Because of the architecture of my program I think it will be better to use static functions since the class is just an utility. In some cases I just need one function of the class so I see unnecessary to create the object. Basically I have this:

class StaticCall
{
public:
    StaticCall(){}
    static int call_1()
    {
        std::cout << "In call 1" << std::endl;
        call_2();
        return 0;
    }
    static int call_2();
    {
        std::cout << "In call 2" << std::endl;
        return 0;
    }
};
int main( int argv, char** argc )
{
    std::cout << "Calling 1" << std::endl;
    StaticCall::call_1();
    std::cout << std::endl;
    std::cout << "Calling 2" << std::endl;
    StaticCall::call_2();
    return 0;
}

It works fine, but I was wondering if there could be any problems with this method. I can achieve the same by using a namespace as other posts already say. But since I already have the class I want to do it with static functions.

Upvotes: 1

Views: 153

Answers (1)

Pandrei
Pandrei

Reputation: 4951

what you are doing here is to use a class to encapsulate two methods - the same as a namespace would do. You are essentially replacing the use of a namespace with a class.

Does it work?? Yes, it does!

Is it ok to do this? Well, from a code maintenance/readability point of view, not so much, because:

  • you can inherit from a class
  • you can instantiate a class
  • static methods don't belong to any class instance and this may cause problems later down the line, especially when expanding the class.

If all you want is encapsulation, or a way to not pollute the global namespace - that's why you have namespaces.

The code is cleaner, more readable and a lot less complicated when you properly use the language features c++ offers.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions