const static Vs. static const

Re: const static Vs. static const

Dave wrote:[color=blue]
> const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>
> Comeau online gives this warning:
> "ComeauTest .c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const static
> int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>
>
>
> Why is static const preferable to const static?
>[/color]
Because it's not legal. The grammar doewsn't allow the
storage-clas-specifier to be inserted inside the type specifier.
Comeaus error message is hwoever wrong (or at least misleading.
The storage class specifier need not be first:

const int static ARRAY_SIZE = 4;

is perfectly legal. Inserting static between const and int
is not however.

Re: const static Vs. static const

"Ron Natalie" <ron@spamcop.ne t> wrote in message
news:428fd52f$0 $6629$9a6e19ea@ news.newshostin g.com[color=blue]
> Dave wrote:[color=green]
>> const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>>
>> Comeau online gives this warning:
>> "ComeauTest .c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const
>> static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is static const preferable to const static?
>>[/color]
> Because it's not legal. The grammar doewsn't allow the
> storage-clas-specifier to be inserted inside the type specifier.
> Comeaus error message is hwoever wrong (or at least misleading.
> The storage class specifier need not be first:
>
> const int static ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>
> is perfectly legal. Inserting static between const and int
> is not however.[/color]


Are you sure? Comeau compiles both versions with the same warning. VC++ 7.1
compiles both versions with no warning.

--
John Carson

Re: const static Vs. static const

Ron Natalie wrote:[color=blue]
> Dave wrote:[color=green]
>> const static int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>>
>> Comeau online gives this warning:
>> "ComeauTest .c", line 10: warning: storage class is not first const static
>> int ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is static const preferable to const static?
>>[/color]
> Because it's not legal. The grammar doewsn't allow the
> storage-clas-specifier to be inserted inside the type specifier.
> Comeaus error message is hwoever wrong (or at least misleading.
> The storage class specifier need not be first:
>
> const int static ARRAY_SIZE = 4;
>
> is perfectly legal. Inserting static between const and int
> is not however.[/color]

GCC g++ v3.3.4 compiles both of these statements without error
or warning (even with '-Wall -ansi -pedantic' compile options):

const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;

This statement produces the compile error:
"error: syntax error before `static'"

const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;

Regards,
Larry

--
Anti-spam address, change each 'X' to '.' to reply directly.

Re: const static Vs. static const

const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;
const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;

VC2005 BETA2 compiles all the three statements without error or warning

Re: const static Vs. static const

* Teddy:[color=blue]
> const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;
> static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;
> const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;
>
> VC2005 BETA2 compiles all the three statements without error or warning[/color]

I'm unable to find any restriction on the order in the standard; assuming
there is no such there should be six valid combinations.


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Re: const static Vs. static const

yes, there should be six valid combinations.
but do they have the same meaning ?
i think i'm a little bit confused.

Re: const static Vs. static const


"Teddy" <duanduan12@hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:1116731820 .073408.43820@g 49g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...[color=blue]
> yes, there should be six valid combinations.
> but do they have the same meaning ?
> i think i'm a little bit confused.
>[/color]

If they're all valid, then yes they would have the same meaning. The
questions centers around whether or not they are all valid.

Re: const static Vs. static const

Larry I Smith wrote:
[color=blue]
> GCC g++ v3.3.4 compiles both of these statements without error
> or warning (even with '-Wall -ansi -pedantic' compile options):[/color]

You forgot to add -W to the options.
[color=blue]
> const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;[/color]

With -W, it says:
"warning: `static' is not at beginning of declaration"
[color=blue]
> static const int ARRAY_SIZE2 = 4;
>
> This statement produces the compile error:
> "error: syntax error before `static'"
>
> const int static ARRAY_SIZE3 = 4;[/color]

Re: const static Vs. static const

Rolf Magnus wrote:[color=blue]
> Larry I Smith wrote:
>[color=green]
>>GCC g++ v3.3.4 compiles both of these statements without error
>>or warning (even with '-Wall -ansi -pedantic' compile options):[/color]
>
> You forgot to add -W to the options.
>[color=green]
>> const static int ARRAY_SIZE1 = 4;[/color]
>
> With -W, it says:
> "warning: `static' is not at beginning of declaration"
>[/color]


Hmm, you are correct.

Thanks for the info about '-W'.

The doc supplied with g++ v3.3.4 ('info GCC') does not
mention '-W'. It does discuss many '-W...' options
that can all be enabled via '-Wall' and disabled with
'-w' (lowercase).

It seems that '-W -Wall' needs to be specified to
turn on all warnings. The '-Wall' switch name is
misleading - it doesn't enable 'all' warnings.

Sadly, it appears that the GCC docs are incomplete.

Regards,
Larry

--
Anti-spam address, change each 'X' to '.' to reply directly.

Re: const static Vs. static const

John Carson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are you sure? Comeau compiles both versions with the same warning. VC++
> 7.1 compiles both versions with no warning.
>[/color]

No actually, it looks like I was wrong. Comeau's still wrong.
The decl-specifier-seq can be made up of an arbitrary order of
type-specifiers and storage-class-specifiers. The const (a
CV-qualifer) and the int (a simple-type-name) are type-specifiers.
Static is a storage-class-specifier. I can't find any applicable
semantic restriction that applies.