C++Talk.NET

Terje Sletteb? · Guest

Hi.

Consider the following example:

struct test_class
{
typedef int type;

static void f() {}
};

int main()
{
test_class test;

test_class::f(); // Ok
test::f(); // Also ok, type deduced from object

test_class::type i; // Ok
test::type j; // Not ok, error
}

My question is: Why isn't the last example allowed? You can access
static members through an object, but not nested types, which are just
as "static". Does anyone know the reason for this "restriction"? Has
it been considered?

The reason I came to think of it, was the thread "implement a
"for_all" function" in comp.lang.c++
([url]http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=869c2c23.0407121554.51f205ab%40posting.google.com)[/url],
which have this macro:

#define for_all(container) for(container##_type::iterator
itor = container.begin(),
end = container.end();
itor != end;++itor)

If "container::iterator" was legal, there would have been no need for
typeof, or a typedef before the macro use.

Regards,

Terje

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]

Terje Sletteb? · Guest

[email]tslettebo (AT) hotmail (DOT) com[/email] (Terje Sletteb?) wrote in message news:<b0491891.0407141326.9033073 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...