Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 12:43:58

Next message: Philippe A. Bouchard: "[boost] Re: shared_cyclic_ptr question"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Re: reinterpret_cast<constshared_ptr<constT>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as function argument]"
In reply to: Eric Woodruff: "[boost] Re: Re:reinterpret_cast<constshared_ptr<constT>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as functionargument]"
Next in thread: Hillel Y. Sims: "[boost] Re: reinterpret_cast<const shared_ptr<const T>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as function argument]"

From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
> In my reading of the standard, clause 7 (which I pasted earlier) excludes
> pointer conversions from clause 3 below.

Clause 7 is even worse than clause 3, as it says "unspecified", which offers
even less guarantees than "implementation defined".

Anyway, this debate is pointless.

Next message: Philippe A. Bouchard: "[boost] Re: shared_cyclic_ptr question"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Re: reinterpret_cast<constshared_ptr<constT>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as function argument]"
In reply to: Eric Woodruff: "[boost] Re: Re:reinterpret_cast<constshared_ptr<constT>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as functionargument]"
Next in thread: Hillel Y. Sims: "[boost] Re: reinterpret_cast<const shared_ptr<const T>&>[wasRe:const-correctness as function argument]"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk