Re: static const double pi = 3.1415;

[Olivier Galibert <galibert at pobox dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 10:25:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> Exhibit 1:
> 
> static sometype = someexpression;
> 
> Exhibit 2:
> 
> class foo {
> 
> static sometype = someexpression;
> 
> [...]
> };
> 
> What is the justification for putting stronger requirements on the Exhibit  
> 2 case than on the Exhibit 1 case? (That is, why does the standard make a  
> difference here?)


A.h:
static double x;

struct A {
  static double y;
};

A.cc:
#include "A.h"

double A::y;

b1.cc:
#include "A.h"
double *b1x() { return &x; }
double *b1y() { return &a::y; }

b2.cc:
#include "A.h"
double *b2x() { return &x; }
double *b2y() { return &a::y; }

main.cc:
#include <stdlib.h>
extern double *b1x(), *b1y(), *b2x(), *b2y();

int main()
{
  assert(b1x() != b2x());
  assert(b1y() == b2y());
  return 0;
}


Modulo typos, this program should work. "const" makes zero difference.

  OG.