Well, this just gets more complicated everyday. The 9.4.2, par 4 section of the standard 1998 in any case (I don't have access to the 2003 version) says you must declare the variable. But then it goes on to say that if you do, you can't use the initializer. So g++ 3.3 is correct, and 3.4 is just a better optimizer. So, you can use named static constants as long as they only appear in the class-def, and I am supposed to define them if they are "used" in the program, though the definition of "used" is somewhat debatable. However, this is not what was intended, and is proposed for change. The DR on this: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#48 More on this: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#454 I already know bout the enum hack, but this is supposed to supplant and remove it. --John Ratliff > -----Original Message----- > From: John Love-Jensen [mailto:eljay@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:03 AM > To: John Ratliff; MSX to GCC > Subject: Re: C++ static integer class constants... > > Hi John, > > To get the behavior you want without having to define the static class > constant in some translation unit, use an anonymous enum: > > class foo { > public: > enum { X = 5, Y = 10, Z = 15 }; > }; > > >Is this correct behavior? > > I believe your example demonstrates the correct behavior. > > In that *IF* you specify the value of a static const int in the > declaration, that both you *MUST* define the static const int in > one-and-only-one translation unit, and you *MUST NOT* specify the > initialization value in that definition. > > HTH, > --Eljay >
