Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-08 16:51:08

I'll raise the issue the committee reflector.

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:


| > | 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?
| No. But it is an interpretation. Probably, faced with such a doubt a
| compiler writer goes making a quick test with Comeau online and just

I don't have any recollection that the authors of GCC went testing
with Comeau online before implementing what is found in g++ in that
respect -- and, actually, g++ is known to disagree in the new-style
casts area from EDG-based compilers.

| concludes that his interpretation is "too literal" :-) As you say,
| this is "making sense" of a disposition. That shouldn't happen, the

The Standard by its very nature *is* open to interpretation.

| standard should always have a precise and unambiguous meaning, but it
| happens in practice. And, to be fair, we should say that if reading
| the standard is difficult writing it is even more so.

I don't mind the Standard have some gray areas; the most important
thing is that conflicting interpretations be resolved :-)

-- Gaby

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