Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • Ok, now my time to crib about the double downvotes. Can someone explain what is wrong with this post? I refer to another SO answer of mine. Not a blog post. Commented Feb 7, 2010 at 22:39
  • I guess that people are objecting to the "You honestly don't need the static keyword in this case" part of the answer. At that point, it becomes close to zealotry; I use static myself, even in single source file programs, but I don't require everyone else to do so. I suppose people might be objecting to the 'shameless plug' part of the cross-reference. Maybe if it was reworded, that would alter things. I have a suspicion that you're suffering from 'the thundering herd' effect; once one down-vote with no commentary occurs, others can easily follow. Irksome! Commented Feb 7, 2010 at 22:48
  • I've not downvoted you. But "don't need" != "should get rid of". Commented Feb 7, 2010 at 22:57
  • @Jonathan and litb: Edited post. Also, in case this is not clear, no I am not trying to suggest either way, except for the fact that in a single file toy program, you can do away with statics. Commented Feb 7, 2010 at 23:17