On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > I agree. I think we have a case here where people will > say anything to justify a (mis)feature that leads to brittle > codes
Why does it "lead to brittle codes"? > If people are worried about multiple translation units, they > will still have to provide a definition outside the class -- most > likely Why? Certainly as in my experience, that's not true. In C++ "static const" is a way of defining constants, and the fact that integral class "constants" were allowed whereas floating-point class "constants" were not was just a wart. It's nice that c++0x has fixed this wart, but there was nothing wrong with gcc's different method of doing so, beyond its lack of portability. -Miles -- Cat is power. Cat is peace.
