Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: unbounded static array member
Message-ID: <25F8D927.13592@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 10 Mar 90 10:38:31 GMT
References: <11024@saturn.ucsc.edu> <5104@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 25

In article <5104@odin.SGI.COM> shap@delrey.sgi.com (Jonathan Shapiro) writes:
>In article <11024@saturn.ucsc.edu> daniel@saturn.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson) writes:
>>Is there or should there be a syntax for declaring a static array
>>member whose length is determined by the length of its initializer list?
>>
>>e.g.,
>>
>>	struct S
>>		static int array[];		// Error, bound required
>>	};
>>
>>	int S::array[] = { 1, 2, 3, 0};
>
>No.  Such an array is not (by definition) fixed size given only the
>declaration to work from.  In C/C++, that's what pointers are for.
...
>On the other hand, it's definitely a marginal problem, and this idea
>is at best half-baked.

Apparently the people at AT&T disagree, since it has been implemented.


// Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu)
// C++ Entomologist
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.