🚀 go-pugleaf

> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) wrote:
[...]
> So it seems to me that being able to write
> struct T { static const double e = 2.7182818285; };
> doesn't give you any added capability or convenience compared to
> struct T { static const double e; };
> because you must still provide a definition someplace.

Doesn't this also largely apply to integral and enumeration types?
My primary interest in member declarator const-initializers is the
added opportunities for inlining;

e.g.:	struct SomeModel {
	    static const double a = 1.76;
	    static const double b = 0.76;
	    // ...
	};

	template<class M> inline
	double derived_quantity(double x) {
	    return (1.0-M::a*M::a)/M::b*x*x; // purely hypothetical
	}

Obviously, I would rather see constant propagation work in such case.
Especially since this kind of code easily creeps into innermost loops.

> We might someday revisit the restrictions on floating-point constants,
> but it seems to me the rules are at least consistent.

I agree with the consistency... and I hope revisitation will come soon...

Thanks,

	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. ]