From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-24 05:49:40
> I believe it's because of the the new C++ innovation of having static
> int members initialized *inside* the class. Apparently Borland simply
> doesn't support this IMO useless feature. Can anyone tell me what's the
> of it when one can perfetly use enums? Let alone it's clearly said that
> syntax is applicable for only integer types.
> Historically there's the rule in C and C++ that the initialization can be
> done only in the definition, but not in the declaration. This innovation
> breakes this rule.
> Although, it can seem that enums are also exceptions, but in fact, in
> there's no definition and no intialization. There's only a declaration.
> I would vote for changing these things to enums.
Borland's support for static const int's is actually better than their
support for enum's (which tend to end up with indeterminate values when used
at compile time).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk