220 5139 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Zhihao Yuan Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: constexpr data member Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:24:13 -0400 Lines: 36 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <300a19dd-8a82-4788-9802-45170480b30a@isocpp.org> <63d90b03-5605-476d-b40b-7ebcee0d3354@isocpp.org> <0df105c5-7019-4674-83ac-1b071964210b@isocpp.org> <9a4c139d-b08f-4dab-b5a3-9ff9d3139061@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1371680736 7724 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2013 22:25:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:25:36 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCUILMGRQMARBYG7RCHAKGQE2JSL4PY@isocpp.org Thu Jun 20 00:25:38 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-we0-f198.google.com ([74.125.82.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UpQor-0002lO-Ks for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:25:37 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f198.google.com with SMTP id q59sf5426094wes.9 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=EtawHolGmfvNNn11Y07CSE+brDB6Hx9Lf3UsBbr38Pc=; b=LueEjehxvZSsBQfiejjUZn95rHvJ0xypocjuu/XlDaWUoNmfa4zhs6i7wPkn7K4dUZ UtpXYWf2Sul22u+AmwPu6S3BwZJ0QIQwyRUZxs5/qN9d2ggUpXRONgxPwNZnW51JUzTq uO7mpx0UNV7sL96aGJIwjzT+6XQkRS/2vqRcso9fc+0kmvdvoKLkSE3CtKsn5Kq7C9Jn Fx+04U3N+/s4hvbHVy64PuhuKqgppFrr5BlicfTBRFhwuTgoMaa2iRpCunJm2H9dSdRP hnFUvgxLubUf3vAlqWSdjidrfLgFIOvNcJRJOJusSdoNKCwyLi+NRw/T/JmW62zTJtvQ rMpg== X-Received: by 10.152.4.168 with SMTP id l8mr1201059lal.7.1371680736626; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.25.230 with SMTP id f6ls34171lag.10.gmail; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.16.74 with SMTP id e10mr4191678lbd.46.1371680654143; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f1si10826837lbd.153.2013.06.19.15.24.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lichray@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::236; Original-Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ec20so5145563lab.27 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:24:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.76.106 with SMTP id j10mr4160061lbw.19.1371680653961; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.79.161 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lichray@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lichray@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lichray@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:5139 Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > struct A { > constexpr int a = 123; > }; > A a1, a2; > static_assert(a1.a == 123, ""); > static_assert(&a1.a != &a2.a, ""); > > Note that I'm not proposing the above, or even saying that it's a good > idea, only that your proposal is not future-proof. If we change it to static_assert(&a1.a == &a2.a, ""); I have a feeling it's more close to what I want -- a constant has nothing to do with static keyword. If the syntax object.name can be overloaded to access a variable which is not per- object, I think it's OK. -- Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray The best way to predict the future is to invent it. ___________________________________________________ 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/ -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .