From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-21 13:24:29
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > | I disagree with your conclusion. As I've said elsewhere, &k can be a
>> > | compile-time constant in the same way that &X::k is a compile-time
>> > | constant.
>> > Certainly, you've said that. But that assertion by itself does not
>> > constitute a proof of the well-foundness of the attempted analogy or
>> > whether the analogy actually constitutes a proof.
>> It's not intended to be proof in the mathematical sense; I doubt I
>> have the energy for that ;-), though I think MSVC probably constitutes
>> an existence proof.
> Yeah. Indeed: <http://tinyurl.com/673e>
OK, whatever. I guess I should've said that you can instantiate a
template on &k with sensible results. Whether or not you want to call
it a constant is another semantic matter. I'd call it a constant
which evaluates differently in different threads. Within a single
thread the value never changes.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk