220 32241 <285f811f-044a-4121-a107-c463bd0693e1@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jakob Riedle Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Allow constexpr static data members in a literal type. Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 93 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <285f811f-044a-4121-a107-c463bd0693e1@isocpp.org> References: <61acd2a4-d2f8-41ef-849a-0c47cee485d1@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1560_1303958533.1493502712158" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1493502718 25770 195.159.176.226 (29 Apr 2017 21:51:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:51:58 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCX2XNFO6MPRB6EVSTEAKGQEYD7QMNI@isocpp.org Sat Apr 29 23:51:53 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pf0-f198.google.com ([209.85.192.198]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d4aHR-0006Wn-JI for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:51:53 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-pf0-f198.google.com with SMTP id j16sf58065678pfk.4 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:51:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=jSJ3BqC4tH0Cay3XRDmrG4LsW5UW//OBfiiIyie0bF4=; b=VPuPI7PVA8Ohl6jyWGUj1bdimD4TRynKZM0eQfSyJlwUQg7MlE01gYMZqDxXlHdWBF +JpNOcrzuy1zv4SoijUpLLh3at3oZNRskBl1Y8xwvud40Gglc6aqY3YfFfYolTRCOIHm H5Hincn6tl9Drx0jXtcORa4TZxTMarjxMXP20/wgI5OgePSV8B29ZGMwJZJ5shluNzUI K3m638i6IgAHOQ5+mbzauJrMXcU4zMKd7gsFhLlSqQeIe5PtmqO3DiGFVKTzxLVp6Ogf mhkogvnLKibfxjfnyr4xqTn2hmKxFr5rzYxJ6ZHB+dNuZ2aVgWp4fvY9PkUIA3i1iJcR LM5A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=jSJ3BqC4tH0Cay3XRDmrG4LsW5UW//OBfiiIyie0bF4=; b=lqv2Z/FnU8Q//B7KfIePNF+mLofhBRUk3e3TuuxaUI6i4wcjpMrQMxg+TDcexPtmGd eN0RwG4f2ajiJ1c9/5FQ6W3TK8PVKq3AJnhcfOjzvAzjwK51kMz+NbNyNI+GHay3lCQg zXTqnvOMtNddqLmK6kiOGyD9sJ00akF8yB/3pBGYSaVcorKbVe1XOw8/YYAfnqkBlgCj fhBEDgXGXYIQ3W8/FYZJ2aqaLzw2dUYOE+z8U5kp4gE3bBhJzrC6WnsHumQ5pWvKtJAY 5PrnDz5x9npxBOOeuahNRso97Zk0uPpv4wUvax6xF+GUId6WNMregRO0Xgtb0iFUUWBY mQtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=jSJ3BqC4tH0Cay3XRDmrG4LsW5UW//OBfiiIyie0bF4=; b=GpehRLEH1RTqa2qjnzfyqOFTQ5U3ZBXHEVd3QdNhxYw1WHDgRAqypCJslrhmtHLJWm LsmbMkM/ix8m4kBWS+9Y5/poSKD9YTnExbVSlcVAkrbhM95Sw1djFDZKRQlclvGWcqSo 1fxUaGaNjgQu+YQg/dPqmnoKlfIQFnB84u9OzE+p17kDJ5FwsJeOtndhIEaD4Z9TBNhk kTMVsKAcKYNhKsDDwglp3QiDukyifdfqS7D8+6iPDBuCUneYojuTntMW50BFgtVX4HZN +O9byZsaOEeg1b35Th4FMNER3OYa5HVAVeLT4DlouXEd3Nb5yg44H9LHhTMpmRL3apC9 Ua9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/60aFy3pQwa96ZYzCVujHTX9iM8VkYuAk6HOJ3Q9p5N9JqLeD2a qALFBbbCaz++8Q== X-Received: by 10.99.157.75 with SMTP id i72mr8544432pgd.78.1493502713771; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:51:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.157.56.90 with SMTP id r26ls8196285otd.0.gmail; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.60.148 with SMTP id z20mr356565otc.3.1493502712708; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <61acd2a4-d2f8-41ef-849a-0c47cee485d1@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: jakob.riedle@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:32241 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1560_1303958533.1493502712158 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1561_1319635756.1493502712159" ------=_Part_1561_1319635756.1493502712159 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Am Mittwoch, 19. April 2017 18:45:15 UTC+2 schrieb HarD Gamer: > > > https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!topic/std-proposals/pSHhUp0-7so > This basically represents *a work-around* but I hardly consider inline variable definitions outside of the class in which they are declared as intuitive. To my knowledge, there are only *historical reasons* that static variables of a class should not be defined inside that class but instead declared inside and defined outside of the class and in only one source file. In order to fish or cut bait w.r.t. a proposal, I'd be interested in three things: 1. Are there any reasons against allowing the definition of *constexpr static class members *of the containing class type within this class itself? 2. Are there any reasons against allowing the definition of *(non-constexpr) static class* *members *of the containing class type within this class as well? 3. From question 1 and 2 stems the question: Can we just allow *static class members* to be defined inside the class itself, *as if they'd been defined outside of the class as inline variable*? Am I mistaken at some point? -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/285f811f-044a-4121-a107-c463bd0693e1%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_1561_1319635756.1493502712159 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am Mittwoch, 19. April 2017 18:45:15 UTC+2 schrieb HarD Ga= mer:

This basically repr= esents a work-around but I hardly consider
inline variable= definitions outside of the class in which they are declared as intuitive.<= /div>


To my knowledge, there are only = historical reasons that
static variables of a class should no= t be defined inside
that class but instead declared inside and de= fined
outside of the class and in only one source file.

In order to fish or cut bait w.r.t. a proposal, I'd be = interested in three things:
1. Are there any reasons against allo= wing the definition of constexpr static class members of the contain= ing class type within this class itself?
2. Are there any reasons= against allowing the definition of (non-constexpr) static class = members of the containing class type=C2=A0within this class as well?
3. From question 1 and 2 stems the question: Can we just allow s= tatic class members to be defined inside the class itself, as if the= y'd been defined outside of the class as inline variable?

Am I mistaken at some point?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/285f811f-044a-4121-a107-c463bd0693e1= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_1561_1319635756.1493502712159-- ------=_Part_1560_1303958533.1493502712158-- .