Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Krügler (dsp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 08:39:44

Hello David,

David Abrahams schrieb:
> Matthias Troyer <troyer_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Dear Daniel,
>>If you use BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT you need to additionally provide a
>>definition on conforming compilers. The correct usage is like in:
>>// declaration
>>class A {
>>int A::x;
>>I hope that clarifies this issue,
> Another approach is to use mpl::int_<n> or integral_c<T,n> which
> supply the definitions themselves.

So you mean, if I use integral_c<T,n>::value, the definition of value
is provided by boost?
According to my assumptions (which might be wrong, as I said) here
applies the same problem, because integral_c<T,n> also contains a
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT and thus a possibly addressable object, but I am
willing to be corrected, of course.

To make my request more clear: I am **not** speaking of a programming
style which **should** take advantage of using integral_c<T,n> instead
of an addressable (constant) object, I am speaking of daily programming
practice. Since e.g. integral_c<T,n>::value is not a boost-internal
"you-should-not-use-or-you-are-fired", it seems legal code to write
something like

const long myvalue = foo(); // run-time determined value
const long max_value = std::max(myvalue,
   boost::mpl::integral_c<long,15>::value); // Combine compile-time and
                                            // run-time information here

without knowing too much about the internals of boost::mpl (besides the
fact, that it might be necessary to additionally add some further mpl
source files into my project).



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