From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-15 17:00:52
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:05:05 -0500, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> 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<T&>(x) has the same effect as
>> the conversion *reinterpret_cast<T*>(&x) with the builtin & and * operators."
>>
>> (And that reinterpret casting T* -> U* -> T* preserves the original value).
>
>But you're not doing that. You're doing a reinterpret_cast T& -> U
>cv&, then taking the address, and reinterpret_casting to T*. Is that
>really covered by the standard?
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?
Genny.