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

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:

>> If people are worried about multiple translation units, they
>> will still have to provide a definition outside the class -- most
>> likely
>
> Why?

Because its address may be silently taken (through
binding to references), therefore a definition is needed.

> Certainly as in my experience, that's not true.

That is extra-ordinary, not the norm.

>
> In C++ "static const" is a way of defining constants, and the fact
> that integral class "constants" were allowed whereas floating-point
> class "constants" were not was just a wart.

This misfeature of in-class initialization is a 15-year old debate.
I doubt, it will be resolved on GCC development list.