Boost logo

Boost :

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
are doing.

| 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
| that
| char * p = ...
| reinterpret_cast<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
| reinterpret_cast).

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?

-- Gaby

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at