CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++staticnamespacesdeprecated
haribo
haribo

Reputation: 71

When is it appropriate to use static (over unnamed namespaces) in C++?

I have been reading articles about unnamed namespaces the whole day, most articles explained when you should use unnamed namespaces over the static keyword. But I am still left with one big question when is it appropriate to use static? After all it is not completely deprecated, what about header files with static functions should I put them into unnamed namespaces now? 

#ifndef HEADER_H
#define HEADER_H

static int func() {
  ...
}

// versus:

namespace {
  int func() {
    ...
  }
};

#endif // HEADER_H

Or what about static member functions?

Greetings

Upvotes: 7

Views: 1807

Answers (4)

Mike Seymour
Mike Seymour

Reputation: 254431

The precise wording of the standard is:

The use of the static keyword is deprecated when declaring objects in namespace scope.

Functions in a header file should be inline rather than static or in an unnamed namespace. inline means you will only end up with at most one copy of the function in your program, while the other methods will give you a separate copy from each file that includes the header. As well as bloat, this could give incorrect behaviour if the function contains function-static data. (EDIT: unless the function is supposed to have different definitions in different compilation units, perhaps due to different preprocessor macros that are defined before including the header file. In that case the best approach is not to include it at all, but rather to bury it in an unmarked grave with a stake through its unholy heart.)

Data objects, apart from constants, usually shouldn't be defined in header files at all, only declared extern.

Static member functions are a different kettle of fish, and you have to use static there as there is no other way to declare them. That usage isn't deprecated, since it isn't in namespace scope.

UPDATE: C++11 has removed the deprecation, so there's no longer any particular reason to prefer unnamed namespaces over static. But you still shouldn't use either in a header file unless you're doing something weird.

Upvotes: 5

please delete me
please delete me

Reputation:

static can be preferable if you are using some tools. It also behaves a bit better with auto indent functionality in most text editors. It's a bit sad, when you have to avoid using something useful because it doesn't work with tools that should really support it, but I promise you'll get over it.

An example question that gives some hint of potential pain in the debugging department:

Viewing namespaced global variables in Visual Studio debugger?

You probably won't have to look very hard to find more problems, but the debugger issues were enough to make me entirely give up on namespaces, to the maximum extent possible, so I've never looked any further.

My personal recommendation is that for code that will be around for less than forever, one might as well go with static. Does effectively the same thing as an unnamed namespace, but, averaged out over all tools, it is better supported. In theory, one day it will disappear completely, but I'm happy to publicly admit that I'm certain that day will never actually come to pass. And in the mean time, you are saving yourself some pain.

Upvotes: 0

Cheers and hth. - Alf
Cheers and hth. - Alf

Reputation: 145204

In a header file there's usually no point in specifying internal linkage, or using an anonymous namespace.

In a separately compiled implementation file you can use static or an anonymous namespace to avoid linkage level name collisions or client code relying on implementation details. An anonymous namespace lets you have external linkage, which is required for template parameters, and it also supports class definitions. But in the end it's just a question of practicality and personal preference, on a case by case basis.

static for a member function has nothing to do with linkage specification. A static member function has external linkage anyway.

Upvotes: 3

Armen Tsirunyan
Armen Tsirunyan

Reputation: 132984

There is no advantage of static in namespace scope over unnamed namespaces which I know of. Use unnamed namespaces, as in the example above. Actually in the example above I can't see why is static or unnamed namespace necessary. Maybe inline? And static member functions have nothing to do with static at namespace scope. Static member functions (and nonfunction members) are still valid.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions