AMDG Simonson, Lucanus J <lucanus.j.simonson <at> intel.com> writes:
Upon reviewing the code it turns out that I use static_cast in the implementation of mimic. I must have used reinterpret_cast originally and then changed it to static_cast after some code review with Gyuszi. static PointConcept& mimic() { return static_cast<PointConcept&>(t); } I am using autocast on the return value of yield to convert to the base type T& yield() { return *this; } Let's please rewind the conversation.
Using composition instead of inheritance would require reinterpret_cast, as I understand it, so perhaps we should decide together if that is really a change I should make. Is the suggestion to use composition a bad idea? Is it based on unspecified behavior?
reinterpret_cast at least guarantees reversibility, static_cast doesn't even do that. Compare. static_cast: "If the rvalue of type “pointer to cv1 B” points to a B that is actually a sub-object of an object of type D, the resulting pointer points to the enclosing object of type D. Otherwise, the result of the cast is undefined." (5.2.9/8) reinterpret_cast: "Except that converting an rvalue of type “pointer to T1” to the type “pointer to T2” (where T1 and T2 are object types and where the alignment requirements of T2 are no stricter than those of T1) and back to its original type yields the original pointer value, the result of such a pointer conversion is unspecified." (5.2.10/7) In Christ, Steven Watanabe