chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (01/26/91)
According to rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette): >In article <27975414.50A8@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>The "Differences from ANSI C" section of the ARM (18.2) does not >>rescind that guarantee [T* -> void* -> T*]. Therefore, it must >>still hold in C++. > >That's a bad assumption. I have already noted other ommisions from >the list in 18.2. It is not a complete list. I'd like to ask that Ron, or any anyone else with a list of omissions in 1.82, post that list. It should prove interesting. I will conclude my discussion of |void *| thus: Even if if the ARM and/or the ANSI C++ standard do not require that the conversion of a |T *| to |void *| be reversible, *I* require it. This behavior is obviously useful, hard to get wrong, and an integral part of the programming model for which |void*| was invented. Any compiler that fails to provide this behavior will, in my opinion, have earned the label "brain damaged," and wll not live on my hard disk. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "If Usenet exists, then what is its mailing address?" -- me "c/o The Daily Planet, Metropolis." -- Jeff Daiell
rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) (02/08/91)
In article <27A087CA.10DD@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette): >> >>That's a bad assumption. I have already noted other ommisions from >>the list in 18.2. It is not a complete list. > >I'd like to ask that Ron, or any anyone else with a list of omissions >in 1.82, post that list. It should prove interesting. I would have thought that Bjarne would have responded to this. I'm sorry that he did not. I don't have a *complete* errata for E&S. Bjarne probably does. -- // Ron Guilmette - C++ Entomologist // Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg // Motto: If it sticks, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.