On 05/20/2010 01:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... for reference, it would be something like this (in my recollections,
it was even uglier ;)
template<typename _Tp>
_Tp*
addressof(_Tp& __v)
{
return reinterpret_cast<_Tp*>
(&const_cast<char&>(reinterpret_cast<const volatile char&>(__v)));
}
It's uglier because the code above doesn't work for functions, and because
of compiler bugs.
By the way, Peter (I think you are the author of the current boost
implementation, which I looked at yesterday), in case we end up having
something like the above, temporarily at least, which kind of
acknowledgment would you be Ok with? Is it enough your name in the
ChangeLog?
Any kind of acknowledgment is fine with me, including none at all. Whichever
you prefer. :-)
