[boost] Re: Re: Re: Extensible polymorphic pointer

From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-08 09:23:06

> > I'm sure C++ support of C headers implies integers are size of a machine
> > word in C++.
>
> Philippe,
>
> That's not even true in 'C'. The concept of a "machine word" never appears
> in either of the standards.

Well nearly everything is based on this assumption, starting with the Linux
kernel.

> Your postings have consistently shown a disregard for things we care about
> here at Boost: portability, standards conformance, and avoiding undefined
> behavior. Please get with the program**!

Please excuse me if I've shown some sort a disregard.  It was not my intent.

> IMO there's little chance of Boost accepting a library which relies
heavily
> on things like reinterpret_cast<> (which is completely
> implementation-dependent) and other nonportable "hacks"; continuing to
push
> one here just wastes bandwidth.

Well reinterpret_cast<>s were defined in the standard and compilers should
take care of the portability problem at some degree, not me at a 100%.

> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> ** or find another forum with different values.

What forum would be as interesting as this one? :)

Philippe A. Bouchard