Re: [boost] Re: erroneous use of BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT ?

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-09 09:47:08

David Abrahams wrote:

> Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> 
>>When using BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT, the member still need to be
>>_defined_ in a .cpp file (IIUC 9.4.2 par 4 of the standard), unless
>>the enum-trick is used, right?
> 
> 
> Unless you believe the DR which says you don't need to do that.
> 
> 

But the question is. Do we comply with the standard of the DR ?

>>However gcc, intel-linux and the mipspro compiler (and probably
>>others) do not require a seperate definition. OTOH IBM/VisualAge does
>>really _need_ the definition (otherwise the symbols are undefined when
>>linking).
>>
>>Would'nt it be better to advise library-developers to use an enum
>>instead of BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT if their library does not contain a
>>definition?
> 
> 
> Haven't we been over this many times before?  I don't remember the
> rationale, but I guess the answer is no.

AFAICT in the archives is says that a definition should be present:

http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg59270.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg59273.php

It is a pitty that there is no mention of this in
http://www.boost.org/more/int_const_guidelines.htm
(I have asked John Maddock about this (who has the copyright on this 
page) but I think he is on vacation or soth so I decided to contact the ml)

toon