C / C++ / MFC

devvvy wrote:

do you think I can send you the stripped down package?

<br />
<br />
int* func()<br />
{<br />
    static int i;<br />
    // other code<br />
<br />
    return &i;<br />
}<br />
<br />

George_George wrote:

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?

Josh Gray wrote:

I'd say it smells like bad design, the only reason to return a pointer rather than a copy of the int is to allow some other code to modify it. I'd rather provide a method to allow other code to modify the static.

ThatsAlok wrote:

i don't think it bad design.. though it break OOPS basic concept of encapsulation and abstraction!

George_George wrote:

How do you think returning static variable is similar to Singleton pattern

Josh Gray wrote:

I'd rather provide a method to allow other code to modify the static.

George_George wrote:

I am wondering how to modify the value of the static variable from other function (other than from the function in which it is defined)?

George_George wrote:

I think you mean static member of a class. But I mean a static variable defined inside a function.

George_George wrote:

You are right. I am writing a part of the application in C (not C++). I am wondering and willing to listen to your comments and ideas of any disadvantages if I return the address of static variable defined in a function, then let other part of code to access the variable by the returned address.