cast(!const) proposal

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Janice Caron" wrote
> On 9/11/07, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't agree.
>
> Seems to me that you and I are actually in complete agreement. (Well,
> one of my replies starts with "But" - see below).

Hm... in that case, I misunderstood this extra "pointer to int" 
specification, and I also don't understand why this even needs to be 
specified :)  It seems redundant.

I interpreted your post as you were trying to say if you have a mutable 
pointer to immutable data, you cannot cast the mutable pointer type into a 
mutable integer without doing a !const cast.  That was where my disagreement 
was.  Since the pointer is mutable, it should be perfectly legal to cast it 
into another compatible mutable type without a !const cast.

yes/no?

-Steve