This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: static const double pi = 3.1415;
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Mike Stump <mstump at apple dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 19 Feb 2003 16:55:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: static const double pi = 3.1415;
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <2E054BFC-4421-11D7-B22E-003065A77310@apple.com>
Mike Stump <mstump at apple dot com> writes:
| On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 11:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I agree in principle; I'm just trying to find a middle-solution.
| > Maybe there is none ;-)
|
| I'd claim the standard is wrong, and we shouldn't be afraid to fix it.
| Isn't the 5year coming up?! By having real world experience, we do,
| with the extension, we strengthen the case for it.
|
| Personally, I don't find
|
| int i = 1;
|
| to be substantially different from:
|
| double i = 1;
|
| :-( As far as extensions go, I've seen worse.
Yeah, but I'm not sure that is a convincing argument for this
particular one.
I do not believe that teh issue is just as simple as you're stating.
The in-class initialisation thingy is much subtile (at least I
perceive it as such) that a mere replacement of int with double.
The in-class initialisation is not a definition, it is a conceptual
"#define" but at translation phase 7: You give a symbolic name to a
manifest (compile-time) constant. One of the issue is: What does that
mean for something whose semantics have intrincate dependency on the
executing environment? Well, I'm not sure I would have time to follow
this opening debate. At any rate, I was just finding an acceptable
path to 3.4 -- this is not a feature I will spend lot of time for and
I feel it would consume time to get "right".
-- Gaby