On 27 October 2014 13:10, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Martin Uecker wrote: > >> Strictly speaking the C standard considers such pointers to be >> incompatible. This seems to be an unintentional consequence >> of how qualifiers are always attached to the element type. >> (I am trying to get the standard revised too.) The new >> behaviour should also be more compatible with C++. > > What is the exact difference in wording in the C++ standard that results > in this difference in semantics?
See 4.4 [conv.qual] in https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N3797.pdf
