🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <u9loq1nv8z.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com> - jason@cygnus.com
(Jason Merrill) writes:
:>
:>>>>>> Don & <bashford@scripps.edu> writes:
:>
:>> Thanks Jason, I've wondered about that too.  If you can't mix
:>> static and const, what way do we have of promising that a static
:>> member function will not alter static data?  If there is no
:>> way at the moment, perhaps the standard should provide one.
:>
:>A more general facility is a way to specify that a particular function has
:>no side effects; distinguishing static data members from other global data
:>for this purpose seems pointless.  Many compilers (C as well as C++)
:>provide this as an extension, but I don't see any chance of it being
:>standardized.

Why wouldn't it mean that it doesn't modify any of the static data members?




Ken Walter

* All the above is hearsay and the opinion of nobody in particular

Microsoft Network, or any service owned in full or in part by Microsoft, is
prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part.
Copyright, Kenneth G. Walter, 1995. License to distribute this post is
available to Microsoft for $1,000 US per instance.
Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.  Please
send notices of violation to solution@gate.net and postmaster@microsoft.com
---
[ 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. ]