🚀 go-pugleaf

The DWP, section 9.5.2. [class.static.data], clause 4, says:

`If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type,
its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializer
which shall be an integral constant expression (5.19). In that case, the
member can appear in integral constant expressions within its scope. The
member shall still be defined in a namespace scope and definition of the
member in namespace scope shall not contain an initializer.'

Does anyone know the rationale behind requiring a definition of a static
const data member that has been declared with an initializer? I mean, if I
write:

        // header file

        class X { static const int bufSize = 42; };

then why should I be required to write

        // some translation unit

        const int X::bufSize;

It seems to me that interpreting bufSize's declaration-with-initializer in
the class definition as a definition in class scope with internal linkage
(analogous to an inline member function) would make more sense.

Thanks in advance,

- Wil

Wil Evers, <wil@ittpub.nl>
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]