Talk:One Definition Rule

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Definition Rule article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

C/C++ Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++ articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article falls within the scope of C++.

First Paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph of this page is "ODR is important in C++". This is not a good description of this page. Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section page of the manual gives some guidelines about it. The first paragraph should be an introduction to the article and a brief summary.

I'm still trying to understand ODR, so I'm not the best person to make this edit.

Well noticed. I tried to summarize the core of the rule in the lead. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

What's the problem with the last snippet? The statement is incorrect: that code compiles even in pre-C++0x compliant compilers. Dgutson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It does, but according to the standard it is ill-formed. The reason for this is the wording of [basic.defs.odr]/2: "An expression is potentially evaluated unless it appears where an integral constant expression is required ... An object or non-overloaded function is used if its name appears in a potentially-evaluated expression". According to this, the static data member is clearly used in the example. Furthermore, "Every program shall contain exactly one definition of every non-inline function or object that is used in that program; no diagnostic required", in essence, even if it is ill-formed, the compiler does not have to warn about it, but the resulting program has undefined behaviour. decltype (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]