13

why or for what reason is it not possible to declare a class member variable in C++ as static mutable? Something like

static mutable int t; //This won't compile

For me, there is no reason to ban such declarations. E.g. for reasons like maintaining a global class-wide statistics, it may be convenient to have static variable that can be altered by (logically) const methods. So either this is sort of a misdesign in C++ and unnecessarily complicated, or there is a practical or theoretical reason which I cannot see.

Kate Gregory
  • 18,808
  • 8
  • 56
  • 85
shuhalo
  • 5,732
  • 12
  • 43
  • 60

2 Answers2

31

Non-const static members of the class can already be modified by any (const and non-const) methods of the class. There's no need and no point in declaring it with mutable. That would achieve absolutely nothing.

AnT stands with Russia
  • 312,472
  • 42
  • 525
  • 765
1

The mutable keyword allows a "const" and therefore non-static member function to change non-static member variables marked as such (i.e., mutable). Static functions cannot be const and const member functions can change non-const static members. I know this is somewhat confusing, but it is because of this that there is no need to allow a mutable static member variable.

Michael Goldshteyn
  • 71,784
  • 24
  • 131
  • 181