On 16 February 2012 09:53, Mattia Jona-Lasinio wrote: > Hmmm, I see the problem. I just find very confusing that the > compilation of wrong code be compiler dependent or version dependent. > Wouldn't it be better to mark it as invalid code and to signal it? That's not generally possible. The compiler cannot tell that you're going to get a linker error later. When compiling a file it's possible that the missing definition will be present in some other file and provided at link time. That's why the standard says "no diagnostic required". > Maybe one could allow the compiler to accept the code with a > -fpermissive flag. Anyway, thanks a lot! No, it's better for people to just learn the simple rule that a static const member that is initialized in-class also needs an out-of-class definition.
