🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45ef3f$n8u@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Steve Clamage <clamage@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
> What's interesting is that you can get the same effect with valid code
> that should generate the same object code as the invalid original.
> For example, instead of 
> 	((char*)src)++;
> you can write
> 	(*(char**)(&src))++;
> I don't claim this code is more readable, but you could encapsulate the
> ugliness in a macro. For example:
> 	#define increment_as(ptr, T) ((*(T*)(&ptr))++)
> 	increment_as(src, char*);

If it is always possible, why not just legalize the first syntax?
-- 
Shields.