On 09 Jan 2003 15:29:30 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm a long term pro-enum (mostly because for the meta programming
>stuff I had to do, it works very well), but I do understand the
>potential drawbacks raised by the pro-'static const' camp.
Ok. Now for the most stupid question of the year: what would be wrong
if the rule was that the name of a static const data member was an
lvalue if and only if the member is not initialized in-class?
a) struct A {
static const int n; // n is an lvalue
};
const int A::n = 5;
b) struct A {
static const int n = 5; // here n is an rvalue
};
Genny.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
