Static const non-integrals in-class initialization

[Miguel Guedes]

Hello,

Why can't non-integral static const data members be initialized within a class?

I know how to initialize the members but I don't understand the underlying
reason to this rule. Would someone explain this to me?

Example:

class foo
{
public:
static const float f = 0.02f; // Error!
static const int i = 1; // Valid.
};
-- Miguel Guedes - X marks the spot for spammers. If you wish to get in touch
with me by email, remove the X from my address. -

[red floyd]

Miguel Guedes wrote:

Hello,

Why can't non-integral static const data members be initialized within a class?

I know how to initialize the members but I don't understand the underlying
reason to this rule. Would someone explain this to me?

Example:

class foo
{
public:
static const float f = 0.02f; // Error!
static const int i = 1; // Valid.
};

Because the Standard says so. I don't know if this has been changed in
the draft 0x standard.

[Miguel Guedes]

red floyd wrote:

Miguel Guedes wrote:

>Hello,

Why can't non-integral static const data members be initialized within a class?

I know how to initialize the members but I don't understand the underlying
reason to this rule. Would someone explain this to me?

Example:

class foo
{
public:
static const float f = 0.02f; // Error!
static const int i = 1; // Valid.
};

Because the Standard says so. I don't know if this has been changed in
the draft 0x standard.

Well, yes. But I'm interested in knowing the reason why they chose to
differentiate the way non-integrals are initialized. Anyone knows?
--
Miguel Guedes

- X marks the spot for spammers. If you wish to get in touch with me by email,
remove the X from my address. -

[Ondra Holub]

On 25 Srp, 13:30, Miguel Guedes <[e-mail]:

red floyd wrote:

Miguel Guedes wrote:

Hello,

Why can't non-integral static const data members be initialized within a class?

I know how to initialize the members but I don't understand the underlying
reason to this rule. Would someone explain this to me?

Example:

class foo
{
public:
static const float f = 0.02f; // Error!
static const int i = 1; // Valid.
};

Because the Standard says so. I don't know if this has been changed in
the draft 0x standard.

Well, yes. But I'm interested in knowing the reason why they chose to
differentiate the way non-integrals are initialized. Anyone knows?

--
Miguel Guedes

- X marks the spot for spammers. If you wish to get in touch with me by email,
remove the X from my address. -

I am only guessing. Maybe this way may be initialized only these
types, which are allowed as template parameters. But I do not know why.

[BobR]

Miguel Guedes <mi*************@gmailX.comwrote in message...

red floyd wrote:

Miguel Guedes wrote:

Why can't non-integral static const data members be initialized within

a class?

I know how to initialize the members but I don't understand the

underlying

reason to this rule. Would someone explain this to me?

Because the Standard says so. I don't know if this has been changed in
the draft 0x standard.

Well, yes. But I'm interested in knowing the reason why they chose to
differentiate the way non-integrals are initialized. Anyone knows?

Then you should ask in an NG that deals with those issues. Maybe
comp.std.c++.

Until *all* systems agree on the float/double format, you probably won't see
it happen.
Take a trip through <limitsto see what has to be dealt with.
Is it FPU or is it emulated? (memorex ad)<G>

--
Bob R
POVrookie

[Ron Natalie]

red floyd wrote:

Miguel Guedes wrote:

>Hello,

Why can't non-integral static const data members be initialized within a class?

I know how to initialize the members but I don't understand the underlying
reason to this rule. Would someone explain this to me?

Example:

class foo
{
public:
static const float f = 0.02f; // Error!
static const int i = 1; // Valid.
};

Because the Standard says so. I don't know if this has been changed in
the draft 0x standard.

The issue is that the compiler is expectedto know how to execute
const integral expressions at compile time, so the const inline int
makes sense. The compiler is not required to be able to do floating
point at compile time (it may assume that it's too hard to crosscompile).