Sujet : Re: how cast works?
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (Bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 13. Aug 2024, 11:34:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9fcrp$3r1aq$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 09/08/2024 23:29, James Kuyper wrote:
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
Why can't there also be a similar correlation between 'implicit
conversion' and 'implicit cast'?
The C standard defines "implicit conversion" and "explicit conversion"
in 6.3p1, and the definition it provides for "explicit conversion" is
"those [conversions] that result from a cast operation". it provides a
grammar production for a cast expression, and none for a implicit cast
expression.
What would the syntax look like for an implicit cast?
There isn't any. If there was, it wouldn't be implicit!
even if it did, surely people ought to be allowed to use alternate
terms for an informal discussion? This is a not a committee meeting.
Every time you use a term with a standard-define meaning in a way that
doesn't match the meaning defined for it by the standard, you create
potential confusion. If that's what you want to do, go ahead, but it
seems an odd thing to do.
What standard-defined meaning is attributed to 'implicit cast'? Since as everyone keeps telling me, that term is not used.
Does that mean it's up for grabs?
how cast works?
Re: how cast works?
