This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: static const enums and "storage class specified for typename" errors
- To: "'George R. Lee Jr.'" <george at topicalstorm dot com>, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: RE: static const enums and "storage class specified for typename" errors
- From: David Korn <dkorn at pixelpower dot com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:57:44 -0000
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George R. Lee Jr. [mailto:george@topicalstorm.com]
>Sent: 04 January 2001 15:53
>I have the following code:
>
>class A {
> ...
> protected:
> static const enum foo {...};
>}
>
>which gets a "storage class specified for typeanme" error.
Try this:
enum footype { ... };
class A {
...
protected:
static const footype foo;
}
The problem here is a confusion between declaring the list of values
allowable for the enum, and declaring a variable containing one of the
enum values.
>Am I allowed to declare enums const and static under gcc?
It shouldn't be a problem; but it's meaningless to try and declare
the type static const, rather than declaring a variable OF that type
static and const.
>(This, incidentally, conpiled under Microsoft's Visual C++ compile
>without any errors.)
I don't know C++ well enough to tell you who's right and who's wrong in
this case, although it may be the case that anonymous enums aren't allowed
in C++.
DaveK
--
The Boulder Pledge: "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything
offered to me as the result of an unsolicited email message. Nor will I
forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large
numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online
community."
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************