On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
I don't see how static_cast would be able to hide an error.
The general point is that casts do more than simply silence warnings. Example: void foo( short x ); int value(); .... foo(static_cast<short>(value())); //static_cast used to suppresses a warning Later under maintenance we introduce an additional foo overload: void foo( long x ); Now the call to foo with the static_cast<short> will continue to compile while without the static_cast you'd get a compile error.
I suggested an assertion in addition to the static_cast to verify the behavior as a defense against maintenance effects. Assuming the type is always short, then asserting the current value less-than std::numeric_limits<short>::max() would suffice. To account for your change of type scenario, a compile-time assertion that the type is short would also be needed.
I'll illustrate with code again: void foo( short a, short b ) { short result=a+b; .... } In general, I find it difficult to accept this instead: void foo( short a, short b ) { int tmp=a+b; short result=static_cast<short>(tmp); assert(result==tmp); .... } In some specific case -- maybe, but I can't justify asserts every time I deal with shorts (which admittedly isn't very often.) Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode