PR3042

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

> This is my last response to this thread.

>> You mean, they don't use static data member templates?

> That is my understanding. Perhaps I'm off.

I have no idea.

>> I don't see how you can consider the 2.95 semantics "broken".  They are
>> more conformant than Mark's proposal, in that more valid code can be
>> compiled.  The question is, how common is code which is accepted under the
>> status quo that would not be accepted under Mark's proposal?  Is it common
>> enough to justify the extra complexity in the compiler and for users?

> v3 uses a lot of const static data members, and static data members, so 
> it's common enough for me.

Yes, but v3 is an instance of valid code which is not accepted under the
status quo.  I'm wondering if there are any significant bodies of code that
would work under the status quo and would not under Mark's proposal.

Jason