T
Tim Rentsch
jameskuyper said:Tim said:It is widely understood that a permissible conversion of a pointer to
a given object results in a new pointer value that points at an object
whose initial byte is the same as the initial byte of the object
pointed at by the original pointer - but the standard never actually
says so, [except for character types].
What you mean is the Standard never says this directly.
Essentially everyone other than you believes it's implied by
other statements in the Standard. What makes you think your
interpretation is right and all those other people are wrong?
I have been unable to identify a valid argument derived from the
actual requirements of the standard to demonstrate that this
conclusion is implied by those requirements. I've discussed that
opinion not just once, but many times, and no one who has disagreed
have ever presented such an argument, either (though not for want of
trying). Do I need anything more than that to justify my conclusion
that no such argument is possible?
Yes, no one has presented an argument that convinces you, I get
that. Have you considered the idea that your convictions rest
on some assumptions that other people generally don't agree
with? Have you ever tried to identify such (possible) assumptions?
What does the number of people who disagree with me have to do with
that?
There's a saying which I expect you've heard, "The battle is
not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift. But
that's the way to bet." One person's opinion (or conclusion,
if you prefer that) being different from most other people's
doesn't mean that opinion/conclusion is wrong necessarily,
but it does raise the probability that something is askew.
...
If I had never discussed this issue publicly before, and never seen
the opposing "arguments" before, I might be more willing to consider
that possibility. However, when people with a great deal of knowledge
of the standard, who believe strongly that I'm wrong about this, are
unable to articulate valid arguments based upon correct premises to
support their belief, I think I'm entitled to a little more confidence
in my understanding of this issue than you think I should have.
Wouldn't other people say the same thing about you? Doesn't
it seem more likely that the two sets of reasonings are based
on different underlying assumptions than that the reasoning
abilities of all those other people are worse than yours?
If you consider that arrogance, so be it.
Please don't read things into my statements that aren't there.
I didn't use the word arrogance, and in fact the word never
entered my mind. My question was meant only as a question, not
to imply a subtext.