From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-18 22:16:36
At 11:30 AM 1/18/2003, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:13:45 -0500, David Abrahams
><dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Unfortunately
>>> the committee seems on the road of prohibiting this and other similar
>>> (and potentially more useful) uses of string literals in constant
>>> expressions:
>>>
>>> http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#366
>>
>>Huh? They're already prohibited.
>
>I meant that they (you ;-)) want to prohibit any use of string
>literals in constant expressions. Where is it stated that this is
>already prohibited?
Other places in the standard make it clear that strings literals
are not *integral* constant expressions. The issue you linked
to just proposes make this even more clear.
At a meeting years ago I proposed to make string literals more
useful as constant expressions, but we decided against that.
As I recall part of the problem is that linkers are free to map
the same literal string to different addresses in different
compilation units.