Boost logo

Boost :

From: Chris Trengove (trengove_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-22 19:58:33


> I believe it's because of the the new C++ innovation of having static
const
> int members initialized *inside* the class. Apparently Borland simply
> doesn't support this IMO useless feature. Can anyone tell me what's the
good
> of it when one can perfetly use enums? Let alone it's clearly said that
this
> syntax is applicable for only integer types.

Borland seems to accept virtually all of the BOOST_STATIC_CONST stuff, just
not when the initialisation involves the return type of a function call.
That's not to say that sticking to enums might not be safer all round.

Chris


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk