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
>>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
> 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:
It is a pitty that there is no mention of this in
(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)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk