I've been reading a little bit about reinterpret_cast,and I have a problem thinking about when I could really use it.I can use it to cast a pointer to a totally unreleated type of pointer.
Are there some good examples to show some situations you can't solve without reinterpret_cast?
Well, a C-style cast trumps everything (can do all types of casts).
One use is to get the binary representation of a float, reinterpret_cast the address to an int*, so you can do bit-twiddling operations on it (like clearing or setting the sign bit, stuff like that).
I've been reading a little bit about reinterpret_cast,and I have a problem thinking about when I could really use it.I can use it to cast a pointer to a totally unreleated type of pointer.
reinterpret_cast is for casting between unrelated types, so yes, you can use it to cast a pointer of one type to a pointer of another unrelated type.
Are there some good examples to show some situations you can't solve without reinterpret_cast?
Well, casting between unrelated pointer types requires a cast, and a reinterpret_cast is the cast for that.
Well, a C-style cast trumps everything (can do all types of casts).
That is actually not true. It cannot do casts of pointer to classes with multiple inheritance in some cases. The C-style cast will just reinterpret the pointer value, but a proper C++ style cast may actually change the value to handle multiple inheritance correctly.
Well, you learn something new every day ;)
What used to happen before the new C++ casts? They're templated and were templates introduced at the same time as multiple inheritance? (EDIT: presumably virtual inheritance was a problem? EDIT2: Hmm I guess all MI would be a problem with a C-style cast presumably you had to add on the sizeof the first base to cast to the 2nd via a cast to char*)
Well, you learn something new every day ;)
What used to happen before the new C++ casts? They're templated and were templates introduced at the same time as multiple inheritance? (EDIT: presumably virtual inheritance was a problem? EDIT2: Hmm I guess all MI would be a problem with a C-style cast presumably you had to add on the sizeof the first base to cast to the 2nd via a cast to char*)
I have to correct me a bit, but I'm still a bit uncertain about the exact details so keep that in mind.
It seems to be that is not that C-style cast cannot cast with multiple inheritance which I implied, but that the behavior of the C-style cast can silently change. The correct way to cast between base classes in multiple inheritance, as I understand it, is via static_cast and derived classes. The C-style cast will do the right thing if if the full definition of the inheritance hierarchy is present. If not, the C-style cast will go ahead and do an incorrect reinterpret_cast, while the correct static_cast will fail.
The C-style cast will therefore cast correctly when the cast is doable, but will silently work and do the wrong thing when the cast cannot be done correctly.
reinterpret_cast<> is just slightly less evil than const_cast<> IMO. It generally should only be used in dire circumstances and/or where there is a need to interact with poorly specified code and/or code from languages other than C++.
One concrete example is moving from void* to any other pointer type. If you use void* to represent "any pointer type possible", the correct way to recover a real pointer is with reinterpret_cast<>. This can be useful when a C-style API (such as the Windows API) requires a void* as an opaque parameter but you know the actual type that should be passed through; examples include any callback system with a custom parameter in the Windows API.
what about static cast? shouldn't i use it exactly for that?
Yeah, I thought static_cast would be good enough to cast from void* and back? reinterpret_cast is for when you don't want the actual value (i.e. the address held by the pointer) to change I thought...
