static const members

[u.int.32.t]

Hi,

Is this standard C++:

enum A{a,b,c};

class D
{
static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
};

Thanks

Bond, James Bond.

[Victor Bazarov]

u.********@gmail.com wrote:

Is this standard C++:

enum A{a,b,c};

class D
{
static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
};

Yes. You still need to define it outside the class if it's used elsewhere
in the program. The definition outside the class in that case shall not
have an initialiser.

V

[u.int.32.t]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

u.********@gmail.com wrote:

Is this standard C++:

enum A{a,b,c};

class D
{
static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
};

Yes. You still need to define it outside the class if it's used elsewhere
in the program. The definition outside the class in that case shall not
have an initialiser.

Ah, so D::func(){A = D::f; // this is ok
}
but mynamespace::func()
{A = D::f; // this requires a defn
}

[Victor Bazarov]

u.********@gmail.com wrote:

Victor Bazarov wrote:

u.********@gmail.com wrote:

Is this standard C++:

enum A{a,b,c};

class D
{
static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
};
Yes. You still need to define it outside the class if it's used elsewhere
in the program. The definition outside the class in that case shall not
have an initialiser.

Ah, so D::func(){A = D::f; // this is ok

That is a syntax error.
}
No. It would be OK if D::func()'s body were inside the definition of 'D'.
As soon as you try using it outside of the curly braces that surround the
definition of 'D', the data member has to be defined at the namespace
level.
but mynamespace::func()
{A = D::f; // this requires a defn
}

V

[Maxim Yegorushkin]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:51:50 +0400, Victor Bazarov
<v.********@comAcast.net> wrote:

u.********@gmail.com wrote:

Is this standard C++:
enum A{a,b,c};
class D
{
static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
};

Yes. You still need to define it outside the class if it's used
elsewhere
in the program.

More precisely, if the address of a is taken somewhere. If it's not, you
don't need to.

--
Maxim Yegorushkin
<fi****************@gmail.com>

[u.int.32.t]

Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:51:50 +0400, Victor Bazarov
<v.********@comAcast.net> wrote:

u.********@gmail.com wrote:

Is this standard C++:
enum A{a,b,c};
class D
{
static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
};

Yes. You still need to define it outside the class if it's used
elsewhere
in the program.

More precisely, if the address of a is taken somewhere. If it's not, you
don't need to.

Can you explain why my compiler seemed to put an external reference
into an object file to D::f???? I would have expected it to replace the
usage of D::f with a...

Thanks

[Maxim Yegorushkin]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:54:43 +0400, <u.********@gmail.com> wrote:

Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:51:50 +0400, Victor Bazarov
<v.********@comAcast.net> wrote:

> u.********@gmail.com wrote:
>> Is this standard C++:
>> enum A{a,b,c};
>> class D
>> {
>> static const A f = a; // is this allowed with enumerated types?
>> };
>
> Yes. You still need to define it outside the class if it's used
> elsewhere
> in the program.

More precisely, if the address of a is taken somewhere. If it's not, you
don't need to.

Can you explain why my compiler seemed to put an external reference
into an object file to D::f???? I would have expected it to replace the
usage of D::f with a...

Because you take its address somewhere. Either by operator& or by
initializing a reference with D::f.

--
Maxim Yegorushkin
<fi****************@gmail.com>