Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 15:39:33 schrieb Giel van Schijndel:
> Dennis Schridde schreef:
> > Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 08:43:03 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen:
> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>>> Just to nitpick a little bit. You cannot downcast, since the memory
> >>>> address points to the child object. Take this example:
> >>>
> >>> Erm to use this example:
> >>>
> >>> typedef struct
> >>> {
> >>> some_type X;
> >>> } a_new_type;
> >>>
> >>> a_new_type Y;
> >>>
> >>> Now my point is that the starting address of Y is _exactly_ the same
> >>> to that of Y.X because Y.X is the first struct member of Y.
> >>
> >> Clever, but unless I misunderstand the standard, this casting would
> >> still violate strict aliasing, though?
> >
> > It could, and it would be just another form of uglyness, imo.
>
> Wasn't that your proposal? Or did I interpret that wrongly?
I did not think about casting from base- to upper-class. Only about the
reverse. This is why my proposal completely missed that problem.--Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
