Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!mit-amt!peter
From: peter@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Peter Schroeder)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: strange binding of `*' in cfront 2.0, or is it?
Keywords: initialization of static class members, cfront, weird
Message-ID: <1370@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 10 Jan 90 22:20:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 37

class abstract{
private:
	static int i;
	static int *ptr2i;
	static int *ptr2j;
public:
	static int j;
};

// what is going on????
int abstract::*ptr2i = &abstract::i; // this bombs
int* abstract::ptr2i = &abstract::i; // this works

int abstract::*ptr2j = &abstract::j; // this works

// cfront 2.0 sez:
// "test.C", line 11: error:  ? cannot access abstract::i: private  member
//
// this is almost identical to the example given in the `Product Reference
// Manual', paragraph 9.4, page 60, where we have:
// 
//    process* process::run_chain = process::running;
//
//
// Somehow the placement of the `*' seems to be crucial here...
// 
// When I declare `int *i, j' the `*' binds to `i', not `int', since `j'
// ends up just an integer not pointer to integer. Hence I think
// writing `type class::*member' makes more sense then writing
// `type* class::member'. In any case the reported error is less then
// optimal especially since the syntax is acceptable in the `ptr2j' example.
//
//
// Enlightenment is appreciated!

// Peter
// peter@media-lab.media.mit.edu