Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
Yeah, but then I start dreaming of programs which can read my
questions in English and produce a mathematical proof for me <wink>.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
