--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not saying I hold the truth. I'm offering my reading, just as others > are doing.
Yeah, that's ok. I meant: it's unlikely that we can really find a quote from the standard that says the last word here. Maybe the intent was to make reinterpret_casting to void* implementation-defined, maybe the intent was to make it legal and equivalent to static_cast<void*> or, maybe, the intent was to disallow it, exactly because such a conversion is already possible with static_cast. I don't see enough evidence to say which of the three possibilities is right, but maybe it's just me. Frankly, I would ask to the writer. I remember that Steve Adamczyk is the author of the paragraph about static_cast. Probably he also wrote the one about reinterpret_cast and can say us what was the intent. If you drop him a mail, I will be glad to be cc-ed. [...] > | 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 concludes that his interpretation is "too literal" :-) As you say, this is "making sense" of a disposition. That shouldn't happen, the 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. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
