Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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?
So you propose that the presence/absence of an initializer turns an expression designating a static data member into an rvalue or lvalue? I can't speak for the committee. Personnally, I do know that that proposal won't get my support. I believe the lvalue/rvalue thingy is already confused enought to add such a fragile, more confusing, non-uniform rule to the language. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
