🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49lcij$i7h@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:
|> Now suppose you declare
|> 	extern const int x;
|> The first sentence doesn't require an initializer, since x has external
|> linkage. The second sentence just says x must be initialized. It doesn't
|> say it has to be initialized here. In fact, this line of code is a
|> declaration but is not a definition, so the initialization would appear
|> elsewhere. 

So you say the term "is initialized" does mean somewhere,
not necessarily here. Then the same holds for "be initialized".

DWP 7.1.5.1 [dcl.type.cv], 2:
   Unless explicitly declared extern, a const object 
   does not have external linkage
   and shall be initialized (8.5, 12.1);
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   ... [can call default-ctor] otherwise if the const object
   is not initialized with an explicit initializer 
   ^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^
   the program is ill-formed.

So "const int x;" is not disallowed by [dcl.type.cv], provided 
somewhere it is initialized by some "const int x = 1;" ?
It is _only_ illegal because of the One-Definition-Rule (ODR)
as both are definitions.


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. ]