>From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Terje Slettebų <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | >From: "Terje Slettebų" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > | > >From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > > | > > Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > > > | > > > Is it any different from reinterpret_cast<T*>(p) ? > | > > > | > > It might be, depending on your compiler. The behavior of > | > > reinterpret_cast<T*> is implementation-defined. > | > > | > Doesn't that mean that dangerous_cast would also be > | implementation-defined? > | > | Oops, never mind. I thought you meant that the behaviour of dangerous_cast > | would depend on the compiler, but I understand now that you meant > | reinterpret_cast. > > But, Dave said "it might be, depending on your compiler" which means > it might -not-, as well, depending on the compiler.
Yes, as I understand, he said that dangerous_cast may or may not behave differently from reinterpret_cast, meaning that the behaviour of reinterpret_cast is implementation-defined, while the behaviour of dangerous_cast is not. > so, you had a point :-) I did? :) Could you explain? Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
