Error Static Member Function Declared With Type Qualifiers
Contents |
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company why static function cannot be volatile Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions
Why Static Member Function Cannot Have This Pointer
Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, can we have static and constant function in class mcq just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Why can't a static member function have a cv-qualifier? up vote 14 down vote favorite 1 This is the error: error: why static member function cannot be virtual static member function ‘static void myClass::myfunct()’ cannot have cv-qualifier Can someone please explain this error and why const cannot be used. #include
What Is A Cv Qualifier C++
with the word const? –Raymond Chen Nov 6 '13 at 13:08 1 possible duplicate of Why there is no concept of "const-correctness" for class's static member functions? –Raymond Chen Nov 6 '13 at 13:11 1 const on static function could be used to prevent the static function from changing the state of the class. Then why the error or so the standard? –Sahil Sareen Nov 6 '13 at 14:23 You seem to be changing your question. First you ask "What does it mean?" Now you're asking "Why doesn't it mean what I want it to mean?" Questions about why a language is designed a certain way don't really fit this site since they aren't practical. (Whether the language is designed the way you like doesn't alter the fact that you have to program to the language you have, not the language you wish you had.) At any rate, there is some discussion of the rationale in the linked duplicate. –Raymond Chen Nov 6 '13 at 14:28 add a comment| 5 Answers 5 active oldest votes up vote 27 down vote accepted Worth quoting the standard here 9.4.1 Static member functions 2) [ Note: A static member function does not have a this pointer (9.3.2). —end note ] A static member function shall not be virtual. T
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss a friend function violates which feature(s) of oops? the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about why static member function cannot be overloaded Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow
A Type Qualifier Is Not Allowed On A Non Member Function C++
Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just like you, helping each http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19812786/why-cant-a-static-member-function-have-a-cv-qualifier other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up C++ : Why cant static functions be declared as const or volatile or const volatile [duplicate] up vote 7 down vote favorite 4 Possible Duplicate: C++ - Why static member function can’t be created with ‘const’ qualifier Was curious to know the reason why static member functions cant http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12997967/c-why-cant-static-functions-be-declared-as-const-or-volatile-or-const-volati be declared as const or volatile or const volatile ? #include
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2542349/static-functions-vs-const-functions this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Static member function functions vs const functions up vote 10 down vote favorite 1 I'm looking at a member function int funct(int x) const; And I'm wondering if static int funct(int x); would be better. If a member function doesn't use any of the member variables should it be static. Are there any things that would discourage this? c++ static-methods share|improve this question edited Mar 30 static member function '10 at 2:13 community wiki 2 revs, 2 users 100%baash05 A collogue of mine suggested that the const way allows for polymorphism. That is interesting. Thoughts? –baash05 Mar 30 '10 at 1:52 Why is this a community Wiki? –Uri Mar 30 '10 at 2:18 Because there isn't really an answer. (beyond the one my mate proposed) and I don't like having questions rated. In the past a technical|specific|answerable questions has lost me points. I don't give a hoot about my personal points, but I felt personally invalidated. If I ask a T|S|A, I lose. If I ask a "what is your fav...", I gain. My understanding is community wiki leaves my points alone. –baash05 Apr 14 '10 at 23:13 add a comment| 2 Answers 2 active oldest votes up vote 14 down vote accepted Assuming this is C++, a function declared as const indicates that it does not intend to change data members on the instance on which it is called, i.e., the this pointer. Since there are ways to evade this, it is not a guarantee, merely a declaration. A static funct