From: miles@gnu.org   
      
   Daniel Kr=FCgler  writes:   
   > I really don't understand why you are so concerned about the reduced   
   > capabilities in regard to const - what bothers you about consteexpr?   
      
   Nothing, constexpr is fine, as long as one is using a C++11 compiler.   
   The behavior of "static const" is just a wart.   
      
   Sure, C++ is full of warts, and constexpr has made this one a   
   non-issue, but still, one can't help but wish these little uglinesses   
   would go away...   
      
   [I know, even little and seemingly innocuous changes require time and   
   effort, and it's probably better spent on problems that don't have a   
   trivial workaround... oh well... :]   
      
   -miles   
      
   --   
   It wasn't the Exxon Valdez captain's driving that caused the Alaskan oil   
   spill.   
   It was yours.  [Greenpeace advertisement, New York Times, 25 February 1990]   
      
      
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)