On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> writes: >>>> If you are doing that, why don't you write a simpler code by >>>> just defining (e.g. initializing) the data member outside the class? >>> >>> 'cause I want the compiler to be able to use (inline) the underlying values. >> >> then write even simple code: dispense with the class stuff and use >> bona fide `const float' at namespace scope. It works with all compilers >> and all versions of GCC/g++. > > Right, but I want it in the class namespace. > > I.e., I can choose between various types of ugliness -- wrong namespace, > funny syntax, or (currently) gcc-dependence. I used to choose gcc- > dependence, but then switched to funny syntax. In the future when c++0x > support is more widespread, of course, I won't have to make such an > annoying choice any more...
hmm, that sounds like an awful lot of effort put into something that looked to me as simple code to write using standard functionalities. Though I have to confess I do not understand why the class must be right and the namespace must be wrong. (Maybe I have not seen the real code, I don't know.) Good luck.
