http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-23 20:55:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Yep a warning stating the similarity of a static member function variable to > its counterpart as a static member would be appreciated...maybe when > pedantic option is going to be used. No no no! pedantic is for warning about using GCC extensions, not for warning about possible misunderstanding of the language. > The issue is real, just consider how the static members/attributes need to > be defined and how instead the static member function variables do not. > Thanks. I've never encountered anyone who is confused in this way. There is no such thing as a "static member function variable" it is a function-scope static and it has exactly the same semantics whether it is present in a member function or a non-member function. I don't see what providing definitions of static members has to do with it. I don't see a need for a new warning here.
