On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:05:05 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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? Who knows? When I encounter these sorts of situations I dream a standard where propositions can be demonstrated like in mathematics or counter-examples provided. Don't you? Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
