I'll raise the issue the committee reflector. Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...] | > | 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 I don't have any recollection that the authors of GCC went testing with Comeau online before implementing what is found in g++ in that respect -- and, actually, g++ is known to disagree in the new-style casts area from EDG-based compilers. | concludes that his interpretation is "too literal" :-) As you say, | this is "making sense" of a disposition. That shouldn't happen, the The Standard by its very nature *is* open to interpretation. | 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. I don't mind the Standard have some gray areas; the most important thing is that conflicting interpretations be resolved :-) -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
