Boost logo

Boost :

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: <>

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at