Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
