On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:06am, yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> 
> | > Why cast to a specific type? We could do the same, but it seems
> | > gratuitous.
> | 
> | because it's only sane way without typeof().
> 
> Why, (void *) matches everything.

You want to defeat the whole type system, merely to quell compiler
warnings?  

wchar_t *ws;
const char s[] = "hello";
ws = __UNCONST(s);

This is good?  I realize that's not the intended context, but there's
nothing except vigilance to prevent it from being used that way, and
vigilance breaks down in complex situations.  

C++ uses const_cast<>, providing a type.  Seems a like a good model to
follow.  

--jkl