Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!necis!mrst!sdti!wmm
From: wmm@sdti.UUCP (William M. Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: static class member restriction
Message-ID: <182@sdti.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Nov-87 13:02:32 EST
Article-I.D.: sdti.182
Posted: Fri Nov 27 13:02:32 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Nov-87 01:34:39 EST
References: <181@sdti.UUCP> <77300006@uiucdcsp>
Reply-To: wmm@sdti.UUCP (0000-William M. Miller)
Organization: Software Development Technologies, Sudbury MA
Lines: 15

In article <77300006@uiucdcsp> spalding@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>It's ok for a static object to be a "member of" a class with a constructor,
>but not ok for a static member object to be "of" a class with a constructor.

Aha!  When I read "No initializer can be specified for a static member, and
it cannot be of a class with a constructor," I puzzled a bit over what "of"
meant.  I ended up parsing it by repeating the antecedent of "it," i.e.,
"cannot be [a member] of a class with a constructor."  Interpreting "be of" to
mean "have a type which is" is novel, but it certainly makes better sense than
my interpretation.  Thanks!
-- 
Non-disclaimer:  My boss and I always see eye-to-eye (every time I look in
the mirror).

...!genrad!mrst!sdti!wmm