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

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-11 12:49:09

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

| On 09 Jan 2003 18:02:51 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| 
| >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.
| 
| Well, mine was just a "compromise" proposal :-) If it was up to me I
| would have just made them rvalues. Isn't the current rule about the
| need of a definition more confusing than that?

What I find confusing about the current rule is that it makes an
exception for integral type const static data member.  I think the old
rule was less irregular.  

(Strangely enought, for long time -- since the publication of TC++PL3
in 1997 -- I've been convinced of having read Bjarne write something
like "it is something I call a misfeature"; but now I'm perfectly
unable to locate something similar in TC++PL3 "special edition", so
either I dreamt or that text was removed.  I can't tell.  Probably the
former). 

-- Gaby