>I think GCC has always supported it, because it's >valid C++. Do you >have reason to believe otherwise? C++ standard, ISO/IEC 14882: 2003 states, " If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializer which shall be an integral constant expression (5.19). In that case, the member can appear in integral constant expressions. The member shall still be defined in a namespace scope if it is used in the program and the namespace scope definition shall not contain an initializer." So, though it is a static const integral, if used in the program, it shall be defined is what the C++ standard says. But, there is also a defect raised regd. this, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#454. But, C++11 states, $9.4.2 "3. If a non-volatile const static data member is of integral or enumeration type,it's declaration in the class definition can specify a brace-or-equal-initialized in which every initializer-clause that is an assignment expression is a constant expression(5.19).A static data member of literal type can be declared in the class definition with the constexpr specifier;if so,it's declaration shall specify a brace-or-equal-initializer in which every initializer-clause that is an assignment-expression is a constant expression.[Note: In both these cases,the member may appear in constant expression.—endnote] The member shall still be defined in a namespace scope if it is odr-used(3.2)in the program and the name space scope definition shall not contain an initializer." My thoughts were, either wording is corrected in C++11 or C++11 started supporting it. So, I thought of understanding , since when GCC started to supporting it to get an idea. Thanks Raja Gopal M smrajagopal [at] gmail [dot] com
