On 22/04/2010 03:30, tbp wrote: > What's the deal with constexpr (or what can i reasonably expect)?
You can *reasonably* expect the documented behaviour from the compiler. Or you can *un*reasonably ignore the documentation, make ill-informed guesses about what the compiler ought to do, and complain when they turn out not to be correct. On 22/04/2010 07:29, tbp wrote: > Ah, so it was nothing but smokes & mirrors. No, you are merely ignorant of the facts. As it clearly says on the changes page: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html > Improved experimental support for the upcoming C++0x ISO C++ standard, > including support for raw strings, lambda expressions and explicit type > conversion operators. (notice no mention of constexpr there) and if you follow the link to the C++0x implementation status page: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/cxx0x_status.html > Language Feature Proposal Available in GCC 4.5? > Generalized constant expressions N2235 No so any disappointment is caused solely by your own baseless assumptions and failure to properly read and comprehend what was in front of your eyes. > Thanks for the clarification. Please, don't trouble yourself with adding insincere thanks to an insult; it's not worth the effort for you or anyone else so you may as well save yourself the time. cheers, DaveK