🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "ST" == Stefan Tilkov <st@mlc-ratingen.de> writes:
ST> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
[...]
>> class X
>> {
>> private:
>> static const int fifty = 50;
>> };
[...]
>> int X::fifty;

ST> This one has always puzzled me. What is the rationale behind *still* 
ST> requiring that X::fifty be defined somewhere if it is initialized in
ST> the class declaration?
[...]
The ODR, I would think. If one decides to use the address of this
constant, it'd better be unique. My compiler will not complain about
the absence of that definition as long as the address of the constant
is not required (i.e., the value can be substituted direcly).

	Daveed
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]