[boost] Re: erroneous use of BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT ?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-09 07:53:50

Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> When using BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT, the member still need to be
> _defined_ in a .cpp file (IIUC 9.4.2 par 4 of the standard), unless
> the enum-trick is used, right?

Unless you believe the DR which says you don't need to do that.

> However gcc, intel-linux and the mipspro compiler (and probably
> others) do not require a seperate definition. OTOH IBM/VisualAge does
> really _need_ the definition (otherwise the symbols are undefined when
> linking).
>
> Would'nt it be better to advise library-developers to use an enum
> instead of BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT if their library does not contain a
> definition?

Haven't we been over this many times before?  I don't remember the
rationale, but I guess the answer is no.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com