Colin Guthrie wrote:
> PS I know the above examples are contrived and that constructors would
> be more appropriate for the above - but using constructors is not always
> possible due to how you deal with failed initialisations where
> exceptions are not desirable.

I see what you mean. You thought that static variables in a member
function of a class would be different for each instance of that class.
Indeed that's not the case, statics are attached to the class not the
object.

As for the problem of dealing with failed initialisations there are two
ways to deal with that. The first is to us a separate initialisation
method - this allows it to return a value. Your constructor would simply
fill the object with sensible defaults.

The second is to have a member variable that stores whether the object
has been successfully initialised. Either of these would be far better
than using a static variable since initialisation status is a property
of the object not the class.

Anyways, glad we both understand some things a bit better now. On to the
next problem!

-Stut

--
http://stut.net/