From: Chris Trengove (trengove_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-22 19:58:33
> I believe it's because of the the new C++ innovation of having static
const
> int members initialized *inside* the class. Apparently Borland simply
> doesn't support this IMO useless feature. Can anyone tell me what's the
good
> of it when one can perfetly use enums? Let alone it's clearly said that
this
> syntax is applicable for only integer types.
Borland seems to accept virtually all of the BOOST_STATIC_CONST stuff, just
not when the initialisation involves the return type of a function call.
That's not to say that sticking to enums might not be safer all round.
Chris