Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > Hi, Hi
> Anthony Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | 3.10p15: > | "If a program attempts to access the stored value of an object through an > | lvalue of other than one of the following types the behavior is undefined: > | > | - the dynamic type of the object, > | > | ... > | > | - a char or unsigned char type." > | > | So given a Foo object foo, static_cast<char*>(static_cast<void*>(&foo)) is > | legal, and can be used to access the object representation of the object. > > There is no question that the above cast is legal. I thin the issue > is elsewhere. The key question is whether that may be different from > > reinterpret_cast<void*>(&foo); I thought the issue was whether the pair of static_cast<>s in dangerous_cast<> was as implementation defined as a reintepret_cast<> would be. If you read my mail to the end, hopefully I have explained that I think that the static_cast<> pair is legal and well-defined, as opposed to using reinterpret_cast, which is implementation-defined. If I haven't made myself clear, I apologise, and will try again. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd. Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
