Re: void *

Article View: net.lang.c

Article #9168

#9168

From: martin
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1986 09:29

16 lines
1467 bytes

In article <86900014@haddock> karl@haddock writes:
>alice!bs (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>>In addition, the draft ANSI C proposal allows uncasted assignment of a void*
>>to a non-void pointer. This, I consider to be an unnecessary weakening of C's
>>type system; in the long run it will become a rather serious nuiscance.
>
>I agree that this is a bad idea; I'm glad to hear that C++ disallows it. ...
>...
>Having said that, I'll now point out that X3J11 draft 01-May-1986 does say in
>5.5 (Common Warnings), "[An implementation may generate a warning if] an
>implicit narrowing conversion is encountered, such as the assignment of ...

I don't regard the generation of a warning as being in any way satasfactory!
You only have to look at the number of warnings that various distributed
programs generate, to realise that many people simply ignore warnings.
This is an obvious portability problem, so lets (please!) have a fatal error!

Technical Details

Message-ID: <882@minster.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!minster!martin

References: <5937@alice.uUCp> <86900014@haddock>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!minster!martin
From: martin@minster.UUCP (martin)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: void *
Message-ID: <882@minster.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Aug-86 05:29:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: minster.882
Posted: Wed Aug 20 05:29:36 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Aug-86 04:12:10 EDT
References: <5937@alice.uUCp> <86900014@haddock>
Reply-To: martin@minster.UUCP (martin)
Organization: University of York, England
Lines: 16

Reply to Parent Message