🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27D5708A.29CF@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes...
> ... about void* equivalent to char*
>Since ANSI C++ will be based on ANSI C, I find myself hard-pressed to
>imagine a rationale for breaking it under ANSI C++.

  The reason that ANSI made this true (mostly, anyway) is because there
existed a huge body of code that depended on this equivalence.  Remember
K&R didn't have a void type in the first place.  This forces word machines,
such as the Cray's, either 1) always create slow code, or 2) supply a
compiler switch to produce slow (but compatable) code or create code
that is fast, but will break some code that makes stupid assumptions
about void* == char*.

  But with C++ this is not the case.  Anyone who has used a char* when
a void* was needed was in no simple terms, stupid.  I would like to think
that the grand majority of code out there in C++ doesn't make this mistake.
So there is no good reason to support this equivalence in C++.  The standard
should declare such code to be buggy and let the language implementor's the
freedom to produce the best possible code for their target machines.

  But what do I know?  -- david | dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu