In article <F1GErq.ApB@research.att.com>,
Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote:
>In article <36349391.41C6@wizard.net>, James Kuyper  <kuyper@wizard.net> wrote:
>
>>  > I'm not sure I get your point. The original question was about
>>  > something like
>>  >         const int j = 0;
>>  >         char * ptr = (char *)j;
>
....
>Because it isn't an incompatibility in the usual sense of the word.
>
>An incompatibility is when C defines a meaning for a program or part of
>a program, and the same code means something different in C++.  That
>definition doesn't apply in this case, because C doesn't define the
>meaning of the code cited.

Doesn't C say that it's implementation-defined (I don't have a copy of the
C standard handy, so I could be remembering incorrectly)?  In thinking
about whether something is an incompatibility, should a distinction be made
between constructs that C leaves undefined versus those that it requires to
be implementation-defined?  While the change shouldn't make any difference
to strictly conforming programs, it can affect other correct, but not
necessarily portable, programs that make use of implementation-defined
values.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]