🚀 go-pugleaf

A while back I asked whether the following was legal:

class base
{
  static funkie(void) const;
};

I received two responses, both of which said (paraphrased):

It is not legal, and does not make sense because 'const' implies that 
the this pointer is constant, and since 'static' members do not have 
a this pointer, it is meaningless.

After some thought, I would like to repose the question:

Suppose:

class base
{
  static void lumpy(void) const;
  static int cLumps;
};
int base::cLumps = 0;


void base::lumpy(void)
{
  ++cLumps;
}


Now, since cLumps is a member of base, albeit static, making a static 
member function 'const' would mean that it does not change available 
class members (in this case, static member variables).

So, with this above sample, I can definitely see a legitimate need 
for static const member functions.

Legal or not?



[ 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. ]