Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > | I disagree with your conclusion. As I've said elsewhere, &k can be a >> > | compile-time constant in the same way that &X::k is a compile-time >> > | constant. >> > >> > Certainly, you've said that. But that assertion by itself does not >> > constitute a proof of the well-foundness of the attempted analogy or >> > whether the analogy actually constitutes a proof. >> >> It's not intended to be proof in the mathematical sense; I doubt I >> have the energy for that ;-), though I think MSVC probably constitutes >> an existence proof. > > Yeah. Indeed: <http://tinyurl.com/673e>
OK, whatever. I guess I should've said that you can instantiate a template on &k with sensible results. Whether or not you want to call it a constant is another semantic matter. I'd call it a constant which evaluates differently in different threads. Within a single thread the value never changes. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
