* John Ratliff: > 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. This analysis argues from the implementation, not from the standard. The standard requires that you provide a definition if you use the constant in a place which does not *require* a constant expression. In other words, int foo[Class::static_const_member]; is fine without a definition, but int bar = Class::static_const_member; is not. It's strange and smells like a mistake in the standard.
