On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:03:31 +0100 Ichthyostega <p...@ichthyostega.de> wrote:
>> Am 03.12.21 um 13:13 schrieb Ichthyostega: >>> Just a guess: maybe Clang is overly picky here, > >seems like Clang is really picky here, but likely more conformant >to the written standard. Have found various discussions in the >net pointing out that GCC allows more leeway here, but this is >considered a "non-standard-extension". > >In our case, in fact we do not need a constexpr (guaranteed >compile time evaluation), since we're initialising a static variable. >I added the "constexpr" just to be able to have the code inline and >in the header, for sake of readability. > >So now the we are faced with the irksome question: where the hell >shall we place that damned initialiser? Is it OK to introduce a >NumericFuncs.cpp ? Since that would be the obvious place.. > >-- Hermann Oops - email collision :) I've just looked at where this is used. It seems it's in only two places in Params/Controller.cpp If that's right, and we don't expect it to be used elsewhere (and there are no other similar issues) would it be simpler to move this function there? I'd quite like to keep MiscFuncs as a header. -- Will J Godfrey https://willgodfrey.bandcamp.com/ http://yoshimi.github.io Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Yoshimi-devel mailing list Yoshimi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/yoshimi-devel
