Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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?
What I find confusing about the current rule is that it makes an exception for integral type const static data member. I think the old rule was less irregular. (Strangely enought, for long time -- since the publication of TC++PL3 in 1997 -- I've been convinced of having read Bjarne write something like "it is something I call a misfeature"; but now I'm perfectly unable to locate something similar in TC++PL3 "special edition", so either I dreamt or that text was removed. I can't tell. Probably the former). -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
