Is void* compatible with function pointers?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:16:04 -0400, Chris Williams  
<yoreanon-chrisw at yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

> On Monday, 23 June 2014 at 20:49:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Since most architectures use same-size words for function addresses and  
>> object addresses, D would be fine to say it's defined and valid. I  
>> think the extreme outliers are architectures that are not equal, and D  
>> will not be harmed too badly by making this distinction. Any D flavor  
>> that would be ported to such an architecture may have to be a derived  
>> language.
>
> While it might be fine, I would be concerned that people wouldn't  
> understand the difference between a function and a delegate. They would  
> figure that if you can store a function reference in a void* then you  
> should be able to fit a delegate in as well, and proceed to lose data.
>
> I would make it something where the compiler forces you to make an  
> explicit cast. Before that, it should warn you about the potential loss  
> of data.

That shouldn't work, even for an explicit cast.

It currently is deprecated, not sure what version it will be removed (I  
didn't know it ever worked in the first place!)

-Steve