On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
But nothing else is guaranteed. The compiler might very well increment it by one byte when casting to T2 and then decrement it when casting it back. It is perfectly valid behavior for reinterpret_cast.
It is perfectly portable as well.
It is not portable if we dereference it, which optional does.
IMO we should be using static_cast<T2*>(static_cast<void*>(x)) which is not implementation-defined.
Casting to a pointer of unrelated type doesn't suite static_cast, reinterpret_cast is a better choice.
I don't understand why. How is reinterpret_cast better than static_cast?
Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida