Private Static
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Private Static
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Asked
6 years, 10 months ago
7,043 4 4 gold badges 25 25 silver badges 45 45 bronze badges
939 1 1 gold badge 7 7 silver badges 6 6 bronze badges
Yes, there's a reason. Your public/default static methods can still call your private statics. Whether static methods should be used at all, and when it's appropriate to use private methods of any kind, are separate questions so be careful not to mix them with this question.
– user39685
Apr 1 '14 at 14:19
Quick example - factory method used by an inner class preventing invocation by other classes (you've gotta go through the factory method to get an instance of the class).
– user40980
Apr 1 '14 at 14:21
@MattFenwick: you should post this as an answer.
– Doc Brown
Apr 1 '14 at 14:23
By making a method static, you are also saying that it does not read or write to instance variables. A method that doesn't interact with instance variables is often easier to move and refactor to other places.
– Mark Rogers
Apr 1 '14 at 15:56
Don't forget that regardless of whether a static method is private, internal or public, it still isn't thread-safe without specific code synchronization effort on your part.
– Craig
Apr 1 '14 at 19:46
2,175 14 14 silver badges 17 17 bronze badges
I think you're on the right track, but I also think you're missing a key point. Most static methods have zero side effects (they're effectively functions, not methods) - that's why they're made static in the first place. The argument against them being private is "If they have no side effects, why not make them public to promote code reuse". That's the key point: when we make it private, it's usually because we want you to reuse the entire class that uses that private method, not just that method.
– corsiKa
Apr 2 '14 at 17:32
I must say I have never done that or seen that behaviour. The few times I have done it was for helper methods to public static classes.
– Miyamoto Akira
Apr 3 '14 at 22:06
@corsiKa: Side-effects aren't the issue. Making a static member of a class non-private effectively promises that every future version of a class will include that same method of the same name which does the same thing. If needs change, and a future version of the class may have no need for a method which works exactly like the current one does, a private method may safely be replaced with one that better fulfills the new needs of the class. As a simple example, suppose a class needs a method which takes a string and performs substitutions like < to < , etc. When it is written...
– supercat
Aug 29 '14 at 17:27
...the strings which it is passed are known not to contain any ampersands, and it thus does not convert & to & [were I writing the code, I'd convert & to & even if I didn't expect it to be necessary, but suppose it doesn't]. It it later becomes necessary to handle ampersands, but the method is public, changing it to expand & to & could break outside code which performs its own & -to- & substitution. If the method is private, however, it could be fixed to handle & without causing problems for any outside code.
– supercat
Aug 29 '14 at 17:32
That's an interesting problem to say the least, but I don't see how it being static makes it any more of a problem than not being static, which is key to this issue. If we follow your logic, everything everywhere would reimplement everything because "omg, what if there's a bug or requirements change someday?"
– corsiKa
Aug 29 '14 at 17:38
1,232 8 8 silver badges 12 12 bronze badges
This is even more valuable when you need to pass derived (calculated) arguments to a superclass' constructor. The super(...) call must be the first line of your class' constructor, so you can't declare local variables to help you work out what to pass to the super call. However, you can call (private) static methods, which use as many lines as is necessary to work out the value to pass to the super constructor.
– Andrzej Doyle
Apr 2 '14 at 7:25
note that there's the possibility of a static initializer block
– Franz Ebner
Apr 2 '14 at 15:40
21.8k 5 5 gold badges 56 56 silver badges 65 65 bronze badges
4,484 16 16 silver badges 27 27 bronze badges
I like this answer, but do you have any up to date reference for this? "and maybe even a little faster"
– Magnilex
Sep 23 '15 at 6:56
@Magnilex, The "this" pointer does not get passed to static class methods, therefore they will tend to be faster then static instance methods, unless the compiler detects the "this" is not used in the instance method (unlikely).
– Ian
Sep 23 '15 at 17:14
6,220 1 1 gold badge 14 14 silver badges 34 34 bronze badges
"perhaps because it shares data between all instances of your class", that would be a static variable, not a method
– Edson Medina
Jan 6 '20 at 17:55
6,611 1 1 gold badge 19 19 silver badges 47 47 bronze badges
6,439 5 5 gold badges 33 33 silver badges 53 53 bronze badges
Highly active question . Earn 10 reputation in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.
Senior Full Stack Developer (Cloud)
React.JS Software Developer - Remote
Software Engineering
Tour
Help
Chat
Contact
Feedback
Mobile
Company
Stack Overflow
For Teams
Advertise With Us
Hire a Developer
Developer Jobs
About
Press
Legal
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Stack Exchange Network
Technology
Life / Arts
Culture / Recreation
Science
Other
Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle. It only takes a minute to sign up.
I just wanted to clear up a question I have. What is the point of having a private static method as opposed to a normal method with private visibility?
I would have thought an advantage to having a static method is that it can be called without an instance of a class, but since its private is there even a point to it being static?
The only reason I can think of is that it helps conceptually understanding the method on the class level as opposed to object level.
The characteristic of being static is independent of the visibility.
The reasons that you will want to have a static method (some code that does not depend on non-static members) will still be useful. But maybe you don't want anyone/anything else to use it, just your class.
A fairly common reason (in Java) would be for initializing immutable field variables in a constructor by using a simple private static method to reduce constructor clutter.
A somewhat contrived example follows...
1 Assuming it has no interaction with other static variables.
A common use-case for a private static method is a utility method which is
You see that you have a few lines of code that is repeated in a lot of your methods, so you decide to extract them to a single method, as duplicated code is not good.
You make the method private as it is not designed for widespread usage and you don’t want unrelated code calling it. (Debate this point in the comments….)
As the method does not access any instance fields, it can be make static, by making it static you make it easier to understand and maybe even a little faster.
Then.... (Maybe now, maybe later, maybe never)
Once the method has been made static, it is clear that it can be moved out of the class, say to an unity class.
It is also easy to transform it into an instance method of one of its parameters, often this is where the code should be.
I can think of at least two reasons why you would need a static private method on a class.
1: Your instances have reason to call a static method you don't want called directly, perhaps because it shares data between all instances of your class.
2: Your public static methods have subroutines that you don't want called directly. The method is still called without an instance, just not directly.
Of course, "it helps the class make sense" is a fine reason all on its own.
Generally, if I find I'm writing private static methods, I take it as an indication that there's something I should have modeled separately.
Since they're not tied to the state of a particular object instance, a collection of public and private static methods could form an entirely separate class with its own semantics & non-static methods.
(Another tip-off is if I find I have a lot of static methods (public and private) that all have a common parameter of some type, they might be better off as members of that type.)
So, to answer your question, private static methods appear when a class provides a group of related methods that are independent of an instance of that class. (...and since they're independent, they may be better off in their own class.)
Static is always better than non-static and worse than a free functions, which is worse than a pure function.
Private is always better than protected which is better than public.
Very simple example I can think of is, if you want to do some processing on input arguments (or some manipulation) which are passed to main function.
So in this case if processing is big and same functionality will not be used anywhere else it will make sense to have a private function as it will not be used/called from anywhere else + static as main is static.
To subscribe to this RSS feed, copy and paste this URL into your RSS reader.
site design / logo © 2021 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa . rev 2021.2.2.38474
PHP: Ключевое слово static - Manual
object oriented - Why have private static methods? - Software...
Private class fields - JavaScript | MDN | Private static methods
ECMAScript proposal: private static methods and accessors in classes
When are private static final variables used in Java? - Quora
Select your preferred language English (US) Español Français 日本語 한국어 Polski Русский 中文 (简体) Change language
class ClassWithPrivateField {
#privateField
}
class ClassWithPrivateMethod {
#privateMethod ( ) {
return 'hello world'
}
}
class ClassWithPrivateStaticField {
static # PRIVATE_STATIC_FIELD
}
Class properties are public by default and can be examined or modified outside the
class. There is however a
stage 3 proposal to allow defining private class fields using a hash
# prefix.
Private fields are accessible on the class constructor from inside the class
declaration itself.
The limitation of static variables being called by only static methods still holds.
Private static fields are added to the class constructor at class evaluation time.
There is a provenance restriction on private static fields. Only the class which
defines the private static field can access the field.
This can lead to unexpected behavior when using this .
Private instance fields are declared with # names (pronounced
" hash names "), which are identifiers prefixed with # . The
# is a part of the name itself. It is used for declaration and accessing as
well.
The encapsulation is enforced by the language. It is a syntax error to refer to
# names from out of scope.
Like their public equivalent, private static methods are called on the class itself,
not instances of the class. Like private static fields, they are only accessible from
inside the class declaration.
Private static methods may be generator, async, and async generator functions.
This can lead to unexpected behavior when using this . In
the following example this refers to the Derived class (not
the Base class) when we try to call
Derived.publicStaticMethod2() , and thus exhibits the same "provenance
restriction" as mentioned above:
Private instance methods are methods available on class instances whose access is
restricted in the same manner as private instance fields.
Private instance methods may be generator, async, or async generator functions. Private
getters and setters are also possible:
BCD tables only load in the browser
Last modified: Jan 9, 2021 , by MDN contributors
© 2005- 2021 Mozilla and individual contributors. Content is available under these licenses .
Anal Pee Porn
Anime Lingerie
Penetration Porno Hd
Granny Nudists Photos
Cute But Deadly Overwatch
