Apparently the compiler considers them to be unrelated types and hence reinterpret_cast
is required. Why is this the rule?
They are completely different types see standard:
3.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
1 Objects declared as characters char) shall be large enough to store any member of the implementation's basic character set. If a character from this set is stored in a character object, the integral value of that character object is equal to the value of the single character literal form of that character. It is implementation-defined whether a char object can hold negative values. Characters can be explicitly declared unsigned or
signed. Plain char, signed char, and unsigned char are three distinct types. A char, a signed char, and an unsigned char occupy the same amount of storage and have the same alignment requirements (basic.types); that is, they have the same object representation. For character types, all bits of the object
representation participate in the value representation. For unsigned character types, all possible bit patterns of the value representation represent numbers. These requirements do not hold for other types. In any particular implementation, a plain char object can take on either the same values as a signed char or an unsigned char; which one is implementation-defined.
So analogous to this is also why the following fails:
unsigned int* a = new unsigned int(10);
int* b = static_cast<int*>(a); // error different types
a
and b
are completely different types, really what you are questioning is why is static_cast so restrictive when it can perform the following without problem
unsigned int a = unsigned int(10);
int b = static_cast<int>(a); // OK but may result in loss of precision
and why can it not deduce that the target types are the same bit-field width and can be represented? It can do this for scalar types but for pointers, unless the target is derived from the source and you wish to perform a downcast then casting between pointers is not going to work.
Bjarne Stroustrop states why static_cast
's are useful in this link: http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html#static-cast but in abbreviated form it is for the user to state clearly what their intentions are and to give the compiler the opportunity to check that what you are intending can be achieved, since static_cast
does not support casting between different pointer types then the compiler can catch this error to alert the user and if they really want to do this conversion they then should use reinterpret_cast
.