BCS wrote:
Currently the described code is legal, unsafe (it can result in invalid pointers) and has undefined semantics (it can result in unpredictable, implementation defined results). What I think bearophile wants is for only the last to be changed, that is; you can still do things that result in invalid pointers, but it does so in a well defined way (at least with regards to the bit pattern the pointer ends up as)
I don't think that's a useful thing to specify - where's the advantage, and if D is on a machine that does pointers differently, why make it impossible to port standard D to it?
