• Katayama Hirofumi MZ (5/5) Jan 22 2014 Hello, this is a Japanese programmer, katahiromz.
• Walter Bright (2/5) Jan 22 2014 While void is untyped data, void* is definitely typed data.
• Kenji Hara (16/21) Jan 22 2014 Because it is definitely unsafe.
• Katayama Hirofumi MZ (2/3) Jan 22 2014
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (7/8) Jan 23 2014 Going off topic, that answers a question of mine! :) I could not be sure...
• Stanislav Blinov (2/4) Jan 23 2014 Maybe you actually did get it wrong? :)
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (3/7) Jan 23 2014 I hope not. :)
• Jakob Ovrum (5/11) Jan 23 2014 All three are equally correct. Whether to use first or last name

"Katayama Hirofumi MZ" <katayama.hirofumi.mz gmail.com> writes:

Hello, this is a Japanese programmer, katahiromz.

If TYPE1 was compatible to TYPE2, I think TYPE1* should be 
compatible to TYPE2*.

Why isn't int** type compatible to void** type?

What's your idea? Thanks.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/22/2014 12:36 AM, Katayama Hirofumi MZ wrote:
 Hello, this is a Japanese programmer, katahiromz.

 If TYPE1 was compatible to TYPE2, I think TYPE1* should be compatible to
TYPE2*.

 Why isn't int** type compatible to void** type?


While void is untyped data, void* is definitely typed data.

Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> writes:

Because it is definitely unsafe.

void main()
{
    int n;
    int* pn = &n;
    int** ppn = &pn;

    void** ppv = ppn;   // if this is allowed...?

    double x;
    double* px = &x;

    // double* is implicitly convertible to void*
    *ppv = px;

    // Wow, now int** points the double* data!
    assert(*ppn is cast(void*)px);
}

Kenji Hara


2014/1/22 Katayama Hirofumi MZ <katayama.hirofumi.mz gmail.com>

 Hello, this is a Japanese programmer, katahiromz.

 If TYPE1 was compatible to TYPE2, I think TYPE1* should be compatible to
 TYPE2*.

 Why isn't int** type compatible to void** type?

 What's your idea? Thanks.

"Katayama Hirofumi MZ" <katayama.hirofumi.mz gmail.com> writes:

Oh, I see. Thanks, Kenji san.

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 09:04:31 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
 Because it is definitely unsafe.

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 01/22/2014 01:25 AM, Katayama Hirofumi MZ wrote:

 Oh, I see. Thanks, Kenji san.

Going off topic, that answers a question of mine! :) I could not be sure 
whether Kenji san, Hara san, or even Hara-san would be correct when I 
wrote to a Japanese person.

Ali

P.S. Going even more off topic, that person did not respond to my email 
yet. ;)

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 19:00:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:

 P.S. Going even more off topic, that person did not respond to 
 my email yet. ;)

Maybe you actually did get it wrong? :)

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 01/23/2014 11:09 AM, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
 On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 19:00:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:

 P.S. Going even more off topic, that person did not respond to my
 email yet. ;)

 Maybe you actually did get it wrong? :)

I hope not. :)

Ali

"Jakob Ovrum" <jakobovrum gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 23 January 2014 at 19:00:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 01/22/2014 01:25 AM, Katayama Hirofumi MZ wrote:

 Oh, I see. Thanks, Kenji san.

 Going off topic, that answers a question of mine! :) I could 
 not be sure whether Kenji san, Hara san, or even Hara-san would 
 be correct when I wrote to a Japanese person.

 Ali

All three are equally correct. Whether to use first or last name 
is similar to the equivalent split in the anglosphere. Using a 
hyphen is overwhelmingly common but not required in any system of 
romanization.