On 09 Jan 2003 18:02:51 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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. Well, mine was just a "compromise" proposal :-) If it was up to me I would have just made them rvalues. Isn't the current rule about the need of a definition more confusing than that? PS: Since this is OT for the list, I guess it's better continuing by private mail, if you want to. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
