Yeah, that's a C-style cast. It's result is like a mix of static_cast, reinterpret_cast, and const_cast -- by that I mean it will perform proper pointer arithmetic when casting via a hierarchy which makes it like static_cast, it can convert from pointer-to-const to pointer-to-nonconst like const_cast, and can convert between completely unrelated types, like reinterpret_cast. Try to stay away from C-style casts and use C++ casts instead. They're more specific, can make the intention clearer, and will disallow you from accidently doing more in the cast than you'd like (IE accidently casting away const with a static_cast).Originally posted by Micko
Thanks, I didn't know that.
Interesting when use
dg=(Dog *) p;
it works just fine?
What type of casting is this?
Is it C-style cast?
So, using the c-style cast will work, however it won't check if the conversion is valid, whereas a dynamic_cast will. In general, you want to stay away from dynamic_cast anyways (preferably don't do any casting and solve your problem polymorphically if possible). If you're using dynamic_cast then theres pretty much a 99% chance that you have some constrewed logic in your program and theres probably a better solution. Use dynamic_cast sparingly, and try to only use it during development (try not to us it in a completed project, much like const_cast).
Aside from this, you should also realize that it's perfectly valid to use a static_cast to go both up and down the class hierarchy and it's preferable over a C-style cast.
dg=static_cast<Dog *>( p );
