[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.

[account42]

Lack of ergonomics around static_cast is language problem. The "most safe" of the casts should not be this verbose.

[spacechild1]

I see your point. It would be nice if a C-style cast behaved like a static_cast in C++, but that's not possible because of backwards compatibility. At least with GCC/Clang you can disable C-style casts altogether with '-Werror=old-style-cast'. (Maybe there is a similar option for MSVC.)

[account42]

Yes, this is something that would need a new language edition to properly fix. Compiler vendors could split -Wold-style-cast into separate warnings for static_cast and other usage though so that you can only ban one of them.