3

C++17 introduced inline variable, and an inline static data member can be defined in the class definition with an initializer. It does not need an out-of-class definition. For example,

struct X {
  inline static int n = 1;
};

Given this, I see no reason not to always use inline static data members, for the neat syntax. Any pitfall of doing this? Note that I don't mind slower compilation.

Lingxi
  • 14,579
  • 2
  • 37
  • 93

1 Answers1

6

Not a pitfall, but here's one reason not to use an inline: if the initial value of the variable is not just a trivial constant, but something more complicated:

struct X {
  inline static int n = and_then_more(figure_out_where_n_comes_from());
};

Now, the declaration of figure_out_where_n_comes_from() and and_then_more() must be pulled into the header file, now.

Also, whatever figure_out_where_n_comes_from() returns must also be declared. It could be some horribly overcomplicated class, which then gets passed to and_then_more(), as a parameter, to finally compute the initial value for n.

And everything that #includes the header file where X is declared must now include all the header files for all of these dependencies.

But without an inline, all you have is:

struct X {

   static int n;
};

And you need to deal with all these dependencies only in one translation unit that instantiates X::x. Nothing else that #includes only X's header file cares about it.

In other words: information hiding. If it's necessary to reimplement where the initial value of n comes from, you get to recompile only one translation unit, instead of your entire source code.

Sam Varshavchik
  • 114,536
  • 5
  • 94
  • 148
  • Note the alternative: `static inline int n = make_n();` -- export a `make_n` instead of a static member variable of a class. Which is just kicking the can down the road (you still need something defined in one spot, just now it is a function not a variable) – Yakk - Adam Nevraumont Apr 23 '18 at 14:49