Yes IMO. I think it may be better to editorially remove voidify.

Jiang An
________________________________
From: Std-Discussion <std-discussion-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Geng Cheng via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 1:32
To: std-discussion_at_[hidden] <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Geng Cheng <xmcgcg_at_[hidden]>
Subject: [std-discussion] Is 'voidify' de facto removed by the resolution of LWG issue #3870?


The resolution of LWG3870 removed the explicit casts in the exposition-only function ‘voidify’, leaving the implicit conversion to ‘void*’. Does it mean that the behavior of voidification falls back to evaluating static_cast<void*>(std::addressof(expr)), the expression which ‘voidify’ replaced in C++20?



Geng