From 6734786896473399397
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:10:04 -0600
Return-Path: <cppmods@ruralroute.cs.rpi.edu>
To: (Usenet)
From: CornedBee <wasti.redl@gmx.net>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Why is std::array an aggregate?
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Sender: cppmods@cs.rpi.edu
Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com
Message-ID: <0ac5f060-84b6-4b5a-a8a5-7c04dde1291c@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <hgf8r0$7ta$1@news.albasani.net>
  <2fba9f88-3e5e-472f-a2fa-b7b415f07f69@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
  <hgiv5f$cca$1@news.albasani.net>
  <c93ad741-55bf-4ff2-8893-29261e44097d@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
  <hgmhf2$vuc$1@news.albasani.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:13:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Submission-Address: std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:01:48 CST
Lines: 25
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-q1OtR4EGRoEYCQs4kJN2vzueY3Qw+HkVteivj/ed+pJlSP6fgQtVtjRkaHjphVaB144Dgu50PVcupNe!9VI8P1pcT34/5OMl9w7Ux2fgbAjXYwv7rwx1JQzDDPq3Dh7p0ITeyALn88GuVP5KvGeBupMPjVTc!qIjEb2SRyF0mOuzn+39MH46FfkU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:1953

On Dec 21, 5:02 am, Scott Meyers <NeverR...@aristeia.com> wrote:
>
> > - if an object with static or thread storage duration is initialized such
> >  that the initialization satisfies the requirements for the object being
> >  declared with constexpr (7.1.5).
>
> b isn't declared constexpr either, so it's not clear to me
> that the second bullet applies, either, although the wording is rather
> odd.  If "the object" were changed to "an object," I'd probably
> conclude that b can be statically initialized.

I'm convinced that's the intent. You could reword this as "if an
object ... is initialized such that you could add constexpr to the
declarator and still have a valid initializer". The wording is odd and
hard to understand, but not ambiguous.

Sebastian


-- 
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]



