Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re:reinterpret_cast<constshared_ptr<constT>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as functionargument]

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 13:06:53

"Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndeepc/htm
> l/deep06012000.asp
> 
> http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/tut5-4.html
> 
> Every reference I can find excludes pointer conversions from being
> implementation defined. They all (even the standard) specifically treat
> pointer conversions differently (clause 7) than pointer->integer->pointer
> conversions. 

I don't know how to say anything helpful here. My general sentiment
is: "Everything Peter Dimov said in his previous message, including
about clause 7 and _most_ especially about the debate being
pointless."

Over and out,
Dave

-- 
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com