From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-04 14:10:48
>From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]>
> Terje Slettebø <tslettebo_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | >From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>
> | > >From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> | >
> | > > Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | > >
> | > > > Is it any different from reinterpret_cast<T*>(p) ?
> | > >
> | > > It might be, depending on your compiler. The behavior of
> | > > reinterpret_cast<T*> is implementation-defined.
> | >
> | > Doesn't that mean that dangerous_cast would also be
> | implementation-defined?
> | Oops, never mind. I thought you meant that the behaviour of
> | would depend on the compiler, but I understand now that you meant
> | reinterpret_cast.
> But, Dave said "it might be, depending on your compiler" which means
> it might -not-, as well, depending on the compiler.
Yes, as I understand, he said that dangerous_cast may or may not behave
differently from reinterpret_cast, meaning that the behaviour of
reinterpret_cast is implementation-defined, while the behaviour of
dangerous_cast is not.
> so, you had a point :-)
I did? :) Could you explain?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk