Re: [boost] Re: Metaprogramming: Using static const or enum?

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 12:02:51

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

| On 09 Jan 2003 15:29:30 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| 
| >I'm a long term pro-enum (mostly because for the meta programming
| >stuff I had to do, it works very well), but I do understand the
| >potential drawbacks raised by the pro-'static const' camp.
| 
| Ok. Now for the most stupid question of the year: what would be wrong
| if the rule was that the name of a static const data member was an
| lvalue if and only if the member is not initialized in-class?

So you propose that the presence/absence of an initializer turns an
expression designating a static data member into an rvalue or lvalue?

I can't speak for the committee.  Personnally, I do know that that
proposal won't get my support.  I believe the lvalue/rvalue thingy is
already confused enought to add such a fragile, more confusing,
non-uniform rule to the language.

-- Gaby