From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 14:14:12
"Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I agree with you that reinterpret_cast should be avoided, but you need
> to provide an alternative for people that need it.
Well, very few people *need* it. Quite a few people *like* it, and happen
to think that it adds uncompromisable value to their code, for some reason.
Secondly, people who use it already know alternatives, but simply don't
like them. It doesn't seem like Dave's responsibility to remind them of
every time. I also have to agree that it's quite annoying to read several
posts saying: "The standard doesn't say what it says". I'm the farthest
from a language lawyer, but the relevant text seems obvious to even me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk