John Ratliff wrote:
On comp.lang.c++, Victor Bazarov says my example program is well-formed standard C++ according to the ISO C++ standard.
"Since their address is never taken, the 'foo::A' and 'foo::B' are, in fact, compile-time constant expressions that do not require storage. The objects, therefore, don't need to be defined outside of the class definition. g++ 3.3.3 is probably too old. It's even too old and non- compliant in this particular case even with 1998 version of the C++ Standard. The standard was amended to allow const statics to be only defined in the class definition if their address is not taken _even_ if they are "used" outside the class. [I am too lazy, though, to look it up in the Standard...]" -- Victor Bazarov (comp.lang.c++)
Is this a DR? This is (a) the first time I've heard of such a change, and (b) not mentioned in C++ TC1. Please provide a reference.
nathan -- Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
