On Feb 27, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:00:42PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
It has been illegal to initialise a static class member inside
the class
definition since sometime back in the early 90s. You must provide
a static
instantiation elsewhere and initiali
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:00:42PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> It has been illegal to initialise a static class member inside the class
> definition since sometime back in the early 90s. You must provide a static
> instantiation elsewhere and initialise that.
g++ used to allow in-class-definition
Thank you and apologies to all.
I simply never looked at paragraph 1 of 5.19. I just (for some
reason) jumped over it. But it says (as you state) that there is a
difference between. I discovered this yesterday but didn't want to
add more noise to the mailing list.
Again -- thanks and s
On 24 February 2006 23:42, Perry Smith wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> The problem is this:
>>>
>>> struct foo {
>>> int a;
>>> int b;
>>> int c;
>>> };
>>>
>>> static const int foo::*j = &foo::c; // accepted
>>>
>>> class do
On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On 2/24/06, Perry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have asked this question before -- maybe to the gcc-help list but
I'm still unclear.
The problem is this:
struct foo {
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
static const int foo::*j =
On 2/24/06, Perry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have asked this question before -- maybe to the gcc-help list but
> I'm still unclear.
>
> The problem is this:
>
> struct foo {
> int a;
> int b;
> int c;
> };
>
> static const int foo::*j = &foo::c; // accep
I have asked this question before -- maybe to the gcc-help list but
I'm still unclear.
The problem is this:
struct foo {
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
static const int foo::*j = &foo::c; // accepted
class dog {
static const int foo::*k = &foo::c; // error
};
5.
