static init function

[Saffi Hartal]

I wrote : 

I sometimes use that way to init my modules.
 if I want to init the arrays and variables i use (i 
don't always create a class which supply the interface cause the people around 
me use C routines instead of C++ ), what do you think about it.
 
static int 
init_module(void) {     /* code to init the module 
*/     return(0); }
 
static int init_var=init_module();
    Saffi
 
Danny answered :
One problem surely exists with this solution: static functions are now 
considered deprecated according to the C++ standard. Danny 
 
I didn't really understood so i asked him for more ...
we answerd :
Here's a more detailed account: In standard C, a function declared 
static has an internal linkage, i.e., it is accessible only from within 
the translation unit (source file) in which it was declared. Though 
still supported in C++, this convention is now considered deprecated. 
Therefore, future releases of your C++ compiler may issue a warning message 
when finding a static function that is not a member of a class. In 
order to make a function accessible only from within the translation unit 
in which it is declared, you should use a nameless namespace instead.  
//File hidden.cpp namespace { //nameless int init(); 
//accessible only from within this file } The keyword 'static' was 
already used in excess in C++ for various purposes. With the introduction of 
namespaces to the language, it seemed more plausible to use that mechanism 
to confine the access to identifires which otherwise would be 
global. I hope that answers your questions, and sorry if that urges 
you to consider revising your existing programs. Of course, you can post 
my previous reply as well as this one. Best, Danny 
Kalev System analyst and software engineer J16
 
    I hope that it was also interesting for you.
 
            
thanks
                    
by Saffi