From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-08 14:20:06
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > | In any case, do you agree that at least the
| > | result is unspecified?
| > I don't think I agree with this part; at least if it means anything
| > other that converting a Foo* to void*.
| Well, then I don't think we can establish "the truth" either.
I'm not saying I hold the truth. I'm offering my reading, just as others
| At this point we
| are just trying to "crack" the standard in the hope of reading something that
| probably the writer wasn't thinking of. That's often a danger in the "exegesis"
| of the standard. I find it's up to the good sense of the reader to stop
| investigating in such cases (just to give you an example: if you try at all
| costs to read a meaning in every single word of the standard, you may conclude
| char * p = ...
| is illegal, because the sentence above talks about conversion to *a different*
| type. And the conversions that are not listed cannot be done with
Well, some of us, by the very nature of our jobs have to make sense of
some dispositions in the Standard. Which means we've to _interpret_
some portions. I don't know of any compiler that rejects the
above on the ground of what you're saying. Do you?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk