🚀 go-pugleaf

Bret Pehrson <BretP@strata3d.com> writes:

 > Is the following legal?
 > 
 > class base
 > {
 >   static funkie(void) const;
 > };
 > 
 > I spend 20 minutes reading the grammar and could not figure it out.  In
 > any case, my compiler complains if I mix static and const for the same
 > member function.
 > 
 > I presume that it is legal and my compiler is crap, however I would
 > rather hear that from a C++ language expert.

Think of it this way: `static' means that the member isn't associated with
any particular object of the class, it has no `this' pointer. `const' means
that the member may not modify the state of the object it is invoked for,
its `this' pointer is a pointer to const. The two notions doesn't mix and
your example is illegal.

The example is outlawed by a semantic constraint, not by a grammar rule
(in other words, it is an issue of meaning, rather than syntax).

	- Bjarne

 > Tnx.

---
[ 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. ]