5 ms·
My point isn't about templates or memory allocation (hence the code that doesn't check for overflow or worry about object construction). It's that implicit cast
by sjolsen 11y ago
My point isn't about templates or memory allocation (hence the code that doesn't check for overflow or worry about object construction). It's that implicit casts from void* are unnecessary in C++, addressing your complaint that it's annoying not to have them. My point is that the lack of implicit casts from void* should not be frustrating, because there are in what are by far the most common use cases equally convenient ways of doing the job.
>What frustrates me is to see the rigidity with which it is followed, and the failure to understand the world in a different way. There is a different world out there that doesn't mind an implicit conversion from void pointers, and they're not "wrong".
I have seen and lived in the world where casts from void* are common, and where making those casts implicit is a convenience (and that world is not the world of C++). I understand that world. I understand that viewpoint. I just strongly disagree with it.
- asveikau 11y ago> It's that implicit casts from void* are unnecessary in C++ Very well aware of the C++-head's answer to these problems. > My point is that the lack of implicit casts from void* should not be frustrating, This was a discussion about whether or not C++ is a superset of C. I wrote up the difference that frustrates me the most and all other comments were missing.