Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In conclusion,
I really hope that this is "in conclusion", because this thread went
OT for Boost a long, long time ago. Please take it to comp.std.c++ if
you want to continue it.
Thanks,
Dave
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:00:14 -0500, Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Saturday 16 November 2002 12:24 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> Sorry for the late reply (it's just my timezone).
>>
>> You wrote:
>> >I don't see the contradiction here. 5.2.10/7 says that you can cast from a
>> > T poi
On Saturday 16 November 2002 12:24 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply (it's just my timezone).
>
> You wrote:
> >I don't see the contradiction here. 5.2.10/7 says that you can cast from a
> > T pointer to a U pointer and back to a T pointer and get the original
> > pointer back.
>
Terje, this is my last reply here because we are widely off-topic. Ah,
is your mail server up? I repeatedly get delivery status notifications
(Status: 5.1.1: bad destination mailbox address).
You wrote:
>> >Much later,
>> >the ANSI/ISO C++ committee had a stream of formal definition experts
>> >e
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:07:11 +0100, "Terje Slettebø"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Who knows? When I encounter these sorts of situations I dream a
> >> standard where propositions can be demonstrated l
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I really miss formality in the standard. Even answering a simple
| question like: "is static_cast(-1) guaranteed to give
| UINT_MAX on all conforming implementations?" is quite a project.
How so?
-- Gaby
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:07:11 +0100, "Terje Slettebø"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Who knows? When I encounter these sorts of situations I dream a
>> standard where propositions can be demonstrated like in mathematics or
>> counter-examples provided. Don
Sorry for the late reply (it's just my timezone).
You wrote:
>I don't see the contradiction here. 5.2.10/7 says that you can cast from a T
>pointer to a U pointer and back to a T pointer and get the original pointer
>back.
Unfortunately the standard is a great piece of work but fails
miserably
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've given probably the closest thing to a proof that one can get without
> having a formal specification. It uses only semantic equivalences given in
> the three paragraphs it cites. Is there a problem with it?
FWIW, I'm satisfied.
--
On Friday 15 November 2002 04:45 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> Now, let me say that there's an explicit
> contradiction (as usual in such scenarios where a "special" case is assumed
> to be specified separately) between 5.2.10/10 and 5.2.10/7, because the
> latter says that in
>
> reinterpret_cast(&
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Who knows? When I encounter these sorts of situations I dream a
> > > standard where propositions can be demonstrated like in mathematics or
> > > counte
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:05:05 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You'll have to back that up with some standardese. AFAICT, 5.2.10/10
lets
> >> addressof() work:
> >> "That is, a refe
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Who knows? When I encounter these sorts of situations I dream a
> > standard where propositions can be demonstrated like in mathematics or
> > counter-examples provided. Don't you?
>
> Yeah, but then I
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:05:05 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> You'll have to back that up with some standardese. AFAICT, 5.2.10/10 lets
>>> addressof() work:
>>> "That is, a referenc
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:05:05 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You'll have to back that up with some standardese. AFAICT, 5.2.10/10 lets
>> addressof() work:
>> "That is, a reference cast reinterpret_cast(x) has the same effect as
>
From: "Douglas Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Just to spell it out in agonizing detail, so we can look for any holes in
my
> logic:
>
> template T* addressof(T& v)
> {
> return reinterpret_cast(
> &const_cast(reinterpret_cast(v)));
> }
The only hole is that the above doesn't w
--- Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 03:36 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> > of inventing a separate concept (say "Addressable") for them. The problem I
> > see in your resolution is that AFAIK addressof() is not guaranteed to work
> > by the standard. Yes, it has
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 03:36 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> of inventing a separate concept (say "Addressable") for them. The problem I
>> see in your resolution is that AFAIK addressof() is not guaranteed to work
>> by the standard. Yes, it has an ext
On Friday 15 November 2002 03:45 pm, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 03:36 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> > of inventing a separate concept (say "Addressable") for them. The problem
> > I see in your resolution is that AFAIK addressof() is not guaranteed to
> > work by the standard.
On Friday 15 November 2002 03:36 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> of inventing a separate concept (say "Addressable") for them. The problem I
> see in your resolution is that AFAIK addressof() is not guaranteed to work
> by the standard. Yes, it has an extremely high probability to do the right
> thing,
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 15 November 2002 02:42 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:24:41 -0500, Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> wrote:
>> >Most likely, those present either didn't think it was a problem or didn't
>> > feel strongly enough abou
--- Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> For reference, the address of an object can be retrieved without using
> the address-of operator with the following function template:
>
> template T* addressof(T& v)
> {
> return reinterpret_cast(
> &const_cast(reinterpret_
On Friday 15 November 2002 02:42 pm, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:24:41 -0500, Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> >Most likely, those present either didn't think it was a problem or didn't
> > feel strongly enough about the situation to speak up. There really aren't
>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:24:41 -0500, Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Most likely, those present either didn't think it was a problem or didn't feel
>strongly enough about the situation to speak up. There really aren't all that
>many good uses for overloading operator&, and it can be a
On Friday 15 November 2002 10:31 am, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> I don't see the reason for the inclusion of operator & either. However
> if really that reason doesn't exist it is *vry* strange that this
> wasn't noticed during discussions about library issue 69:
>
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:24:19 -0500, Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tuesday 29 October 2002 04:10 pm, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>> Why are requirements about the address operator (&) included in the
>> CopyConstructible concept at
>> http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/CopyConstructible
26 matches
Mail list logo
