Re: [boost] Strange gcc 3.2.2-5.8 behavior

From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-11 12:21:02

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:58:20PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:11:51AM -0500, John Eddy wrote:
> 
> > Thank you Jonathan and Tony,
> > 
> > Fortunately, the class in which I am using this construct is templatized 
> > so the initializations as you (Tony) suggested are fine appearing just 
> > below the class.  If it weren't a templatized class, doing so would 
> > produce multiply defined symbol errors.  I suppose the only way around 
> > that is to have an implementation file which requires a library be 
> > built, etc. yes? (bummer)

Actually - there's at least one other option, don't define the member
and require users of the header to add a definition somewhere in their
program.  That's probably an excellent way of ensuring noone ever uses
your header  ;)

jon

-- 
"I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."
	- Lord Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst