new requirement of "constexpr" for static const float data members is too restrictive

[Miles Bader]

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
>> I.e., I can choose between various types of ugliness -- wrong namespace,
>> funny syntax, or (currently) gcc-dependence. Â I used to choose gcc-
>> dependence, but then switched to funny syntax. Â In the future when c++0x
>> support is more widespread, of course, I won't have to make such an
>> annoying choice any more...
>
> hmm, that sounds like an awful lot of effort put into something that looked
> to me as simple code to write using standard functionalities.  Though
> I have to confess I do not understand why the class must be right and the
> namespace must be  wrong.  (Maybe I have not seen the real code, I
> don't know.)

Exactly.  Which is "right" or "acceptable" depends on the details and
programming style, and is subjective to some degree.

Anyway, what's important is whether existing code _may_ have chosen to
use this gcc feature, and may not consider pre-c++0x alternatives
palatable.

The point was made that this feature was already deprecated -- but I
think given that a more-palatable option will be available in c++0x[*],
it would be nice to give users a certain amount of overlap during which
both the old (deprecated) and new features are both supported.  That
would suggest keeping this feature for a while still...

[If there were no such c++0x feature coming, I guess it would matter
less when the deprecation actually changed to removal.]

[*] "more palatable" because only definitions need be updated, not uses,
all attributes of the existing gcc-only code are maintained (inheritance
by subclasses, etc), and there's no need for a change in programming
style.

-Miles

-- 
Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.