>> Oddly, an initializer on a class const member is required to be a >constant >> expression, which suggests that it would be a constant function call >in >> that context. Personally, I think this is a stupid rule. There is no >> reason why a constant expression should be required in this context. > >This is the issue of http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=2372 ? Actually, these are slightly different issues. Mantis 2372 deals with const variables, rather than const class properties. The restriction on const class properties is stronger than the restriction on const variables. The BNF for an initializer on a const class property requires a constant_expression. This does not allow hierarchical references or references to const variables, which are allowed on initializers for const variables. Both sets of restrictions appear to be similar in serving no useful purpose. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Oct 30 14:05:51 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 30 2008 - 14:06:20 PDT