In article <27A087CA.10DD@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette):
>>
>>That's a bad assumption.  I have already noted other ommisions from
>>the list in 18.2.  It is not a complete list.
>
>I'd like to ask that Ron, or any anyone else with a list of omissions
>in 1.82, post that list.  It should prove interesting.

I would have thought that Bjarne would have responded to this.  I'm
sorry that he did not.

I don't have a *complete* errata for E&S.  Bjarne probably does.

--

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.

According to rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette):
>In article <27975414.50A8@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>The "Differences from ANSI C" section of the ARM (18.2) does not
>>rescind that guarantee [T* -> void* -> T*].  Therefore, it must
>>still hold in C++.
>
>That's a bad assumption.  I have already noted other ommisions from
>the list in 18.2.  It is not a complete list.

I'd like to ask that Ron, or any anyone else with a list of omissions
in 1.82, post that list.  It should prove interesting.

I will conclude my discussion of |void *| thus:

Even if if the ARM and/or the ANSI C++ standard do not require that
the conversion of a |T *| to |void *| be reversible, *I* require it.
This behavior is obviously useful, hard to get wrong, and an integral
part of the programming model for which |void*| was invented.  Any
compiler that fails to provide this behavior will, in my opinion, have
earned the label "brain damaged," and wll not live on my hard disk.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
       "If Usenet exists, then what is its mailing address?"  -- me
             "c/o The Daily Planet, Metropolis."  -- Jeff Daiell