Why is this constexpr static member function not seen as constexpr when called?

From memory, member function bodies are evaluated only once the class has been completely defined.

static constexpr int bah = static_n_items(); 

forms part of the class definition, but it’s referring to a (static) member function, which cannot yet be defined.

Solution:

defer constant expressions to a base class and derive from it.

e.g.:

struct Item_id_base
{
    enum Enum
    {
        size, position, attributes, window_rect, max_window_size, _
    };

    static constexpr int n_items_ = _;                          // OK
    constexpr auto member_n_items() const -> int { return _; }  // OK
    static constexpr auto static_n_items() -> int { return _; } // OK
    static constexpr int so_far = n_items_;                     // OK
};

struct Item_id : Item_id_base
{
    #ifndef OUT_OF_CLASS
        static constexpr int bah = static_n_items();            // now OK
    #endif
};

constexpr auto n_ids() -> int { return Item_id().member_n_items(); }    // OK

auto main() -> int
{
    #ifdef OUT_OF_CLASS
        static constexpr int bah = Item_id::static_n_items();   // OK
    #endif
}

Why do you think the standard disallows it?

Because this is illegal:

struct Item_id
{   
    // ... etc.

    #ifndef OUT_OF_CLASS
        static constexpr int bah;// = static_n_items();            //! Nah.
    #endif
};

constexpr int Item_id::bah = static_n_items();

And a constexpr must have a constexpr definition. The only place we can define it is during its declaration…

… so by deduction it cannot refer to any function who’s body is not yet defined.

I am at a loss to know where to look in the standard for all that. Probably 5 different, seemingly unrelated clauses 🙂