[flohofwoe]

> The void pointer rules are better in C IMHO as they avoid unneeded casts

...so much this! A void pointer is an "any-pointer" by design. It shouldn't require casting from and to specific pointer types, that defeats the whole point of having void pointers in the first place.

[TuxSH]

> It shouldn't require casting from and to specific pointer types

You don't need to explicitly cast T* to void* (guaranteed to be safe), you only need to cast when converting out of void*.

The rules are basically the same as casting between pointer-to-derived-class and pointer-to-base-class and they make sense.

[uecker]

They make sense but reduce type safety, because once you add the cast the case might hide some real typing issue. I sympathize with the idea that the down-cast should be explicit though.

[spacechild1]

> They make sense but reduce type safety

Yes, downcasting can be unsafe and should be used carefully, but what's the alternative? At least in C++ you can't cast between unrelated types without an explicit reinterpret_cast (or C-style cast).

[chrchang523]

and you CAN use static_cast to convert from void*; this silently keeps working if you refactor the void* into a matching-type pointer later, while raising a compilation error if you refactor to a different-type pointer.

[uecker]

Yes, a static_cast would be safe, but then most C++ seems to use a C-style cast because it is less clunky and then is less safe than the corresponding C code. The issue is not that the downcast is unsafe (it is, but once you have a void pointer you already accepted this), but that it becomes even less safe by adding a C-style cast.

It is also not clear what is gained by forcing programmers to add a cast. Void pointers should be used sparingly anyway.

[spacechild1]

> but then most C++ seems to use a C-style cast

If C++ programmers do not use modern safety features, that's really their fault. C-style pointer casts should be flagged in code review.

> but that it becomes even less safe by adding a C-style cast.

At least in C++ there is a safer option. If you really want to be on the safe side, you can even to a dynamic_cast (assuming your code base allows RTTI).

> It is also not clear what is gained by forcing programmers to add a cast.

I think the point is to make it explicit and stand out.

[1718627440]

The point is that, there is nothing else to be done with a void pointer, other then downcasting it, and it needs to be downcasted to be used. There is no other check that somehow validates the cast, so there is no upside to requiring the cast, while it does potentially silence accidental casts once the type changed.