From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-15 16:05:05
Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 03:36 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> of inventing a separate concept (say "Addressable") for them. The problem I
>> see in your resolution is that AFAIK addressof() is not guaranteed to work
>> by the standard. Yes, it has an extremely high probability to do the right
>> thing, but not a guarantee.
> You'll have to back that up with some standardese. AFAICT, 5.2.10/10 lets
> addressof() work:
> "That is, a reference cast reinterpret_cast<T&>(x) has the same effect as
> the conversion *reinterpret_cast<T*>(&x) with the builtin & and * operators."
> (And that reinterpret casting T* -> U* -> T* preserves the original value).
But you're not doing that. You're doing a reinterpret_cast T& -> U
cv&, then taking the address, and reinterpret_casting to T*. Is that
really covered by the standard?
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk