[cross-posted to comp.std.c++, followup set there]

Frank Patz <fp@contact.de> writes:

> Consider:
>
> class C {
> private:
>   typedef something T;
>   static T member;
> };
>
> According to Stroustrup and ARM, declaring `member' is
> not enough, it also has to be *defined* somewhere, like:
>
> C::T C::member;
>
> This compiles without warnings with some compilers (GCC),
> but others (SGI C++) emit a warning, saying that using C::T
> "outside" the scope of C is not allowed.
>
> I wonder wether the definition statement is inside or outside
> the scope of class C? Any comments?

1) this correct definition is written at namespace/global
scope, but there are no problems

2) these definitions are useless and should IMO disappear
as the provide no additionnal information wrt the
declaration.

The same for:

struct T {
    static const int i = 4;
    static const float f = 3.14; // should be allowed
};

const int T::i; // stupid useless definition
const float T::f = 3.14; // again, no need for it

--

Valentin Bonnard                mailto:bonnardv@pratique.fr
info about C++/a propos du C++: http://www.pratique.fr/~bonnardv/

      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]
---
[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]