Re: [Boost-users] [CONFIG] static const definitions

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [CONFIG] static const definitions
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-27 20:01:09

On 2/27/2013 4:25 AM, John Maddock wrote:
>>> At least one other compiler does in fact require the bare definition to
>>> link properly, and doesn't generate it automatically as an enhancement.
>>> So I need to make these definitions conditional based on the platform
>>> (and perhaps the exact compiler version?  That's why I like to use the
>>> existing config knowledge base!)
>>>
>>> I see that Boost has BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT  but that is for compilers
>>> that don't have the in-class initialization at all.
>>>
>>> So if Boost is using such constructs, how does it deal with the linker
>>> idiosyncrasy?
>>
>> You could always not initialize inline and therefore always supply a
>> separate definition.
>
> Which would prevent them being used as constant-expressions?

I see your point. But in the worst case you could always put your static 
const declarations in a header file within a namespace rather than in a 
class. Then just include the header file as needed. This would solve the 
anomalies between compilers.

I agree it would be better and more natural using whatever
Boost could provide as a solution rather than twist your code to 
workaround compiler differences.