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