Re: Why is static member initialization inconsistent?

I like the typedef approach. I didn't know it needs to instantiate the
complete template. My approach is a little more overhead, but maybe it
tricks the compiler into instantiation. I suggest to use an empty class
template ForcePrintMe whose type depends on&PrintingYou::pm like this
(tested on gcc4.6, not tested on VS2010, maybe one of you can do so and
post the result):

#include<iostream>
#include<ostream>

struct PrintMe
{
    PrintMe() { std::cout<< "PrintMe"<< std::endl; }
};

template<PrintMe*>
struct ForcePrintMe {};

template<class T>
struct PrintingYou
{
    static PrintMe pm;
    static ForcePrintMe<&PrintingYou::pm> f;
};
template<class T>
PrintMe PrintingYou<T>::pm;
template<class T>
ForcePrintMe<&PrintingYou<T>::pm> PrintingYou<T>::f;

int main()
{
    PrintingYou<int> y;
    (void)y;
}