🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <48su7l$4hj@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.sun.com (Steve Clamage) writes:
[..]
|> >class X
|> >{
|> >static const int fifty;
|> >...
|> >};
|> >int X::fifty = 50;
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  (*)
|> 
|> But why not use the method that preserves the original intent of having
|> fifty be a manifest constant?
|> 
|> class X {
|> 	static const int fifty = 50;
|> };
|> and then in one place
|> 	int X::fifty;

Coz I've to designate once and forever one file to contain this 
definition and to link it whenever I use class X.

class X
{
};
const int X__fifty = 50;

It this works, why cant (*) work the same way ? The only 
difference is, that X::fifty is a member and X__fifty isn't.
Besides membership X__fifty gives us what we want:
(a) use it as constant expression
(b) no need for a special implementation-file.

Why do we have to pay for membership by giving up property (b) ?
I cant see a rationale behinde it.

Ulf Schuenemann

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 ,_.   Ulf Schuenemann
#,  \  Fakultaet fuer Informatik, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany.
 |   > email: schuenem@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
 v=-<  WWW:   http://hphalle2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~schuenem/

---
[ 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. ]