In article <35614CFD.FEFADDCF@physik.tu-muenchen.de>,
Christopher Eltschka  <celtschk@physik.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
 >Pablo Halpern wrote:
 >>
 >> John Hancock <jhancock+@IUS5.IUS.cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
 >>
 >> > And this change to the language would break no
 >> >existing code, since char::foo would be illegal in today's standard.
 >>
 >> char::foo; defines a global variable, foo, of type char.
 >
 >Then what about:
 >
 >struct X
 >{
 >  static int x;
 >};
 >
 >X::x;

The difference is that "char" is a keyword in the language, and "char::foo"
is lexed as "char ::foo", which is a variable definition.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Pablo Halpern wrote:
>
> John Hancock <jhancock+@IUS5.IUS.cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > And this change to the language would break no
> >existing code, since char::foo would be illegal in today's standard.
>
> char::foo; defines a global variable, foo, of type char.

Then what about:

struct X
{
  static int x;
};

X::x;

Does this
- define a global variable x of type X, or
- define the static member x of X via implicit int rule?
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]