extra clarification: I understand type safety, but my position is about developer ergonomics.

Why are we allowing X * to void * rather than making the developer cast? While void * to X * is somehow requiring the developer to cast? Double standards isn’t it? If you’re worried about type safety you would enforce explicit casting for both since both are different types!

You either allow implicit conversion for both ends, or enforce explicit conversion for both ends. The double standards just confuses people!

> On 21 Sep 2026, at 08:16, Veгified ✔ <liamgraham_at_outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Pal I want to make it clear that the name I have was some weird teenage nonsense from years ago but I’m changing it now and it doesn’t detract from my point. If I’m not a real person then who you think I am?
>
> It’s dangerous yes but explicitly casting back just adds more keystrokes and is costly for ease of development. It doesnt inherently make it safe and the CPU doesn’t care.
>
>> On 21 Sep 2026, at 06:42, std-proposals-request_at_lists.isocpp.org wrote:
>>
>> Send Std-Proposals mailing list submissions to
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> std-proposals-request_at_[hidden]
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> std-proposals-owner_at_lists.isocpp.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Std-Proposals digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from void * to X *
>> (Ve?ified ?)
>> 2. Re: PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from void * to X *
>> (Thiago Macieira)
>> 3. Re: PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from void * to X *
>> (Tiago Freire)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2026 22:04:27 +0000
>> From: Ve?ified ? <liamgraham_at_outlook.com>
>> To: "std-proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org" <std-proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org>
>> Subject: [std-proposals] PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from void
>> * to X *
>> Message-ID:
>> <LO0P265MB2828EFBA28126358DF60EF90C5852_at_LO0P265MB2828.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> C allows void * to X * implicit conversions.
>> However I found that C++ does not offer such feature, preferring developers to use static_cast
>>
>> Casting explicitly because the element types aren't the same slows down development speed and adds no technical benefit.
>>
>> So I propose that we allow C-style implicit conversions, to speed up ease of development.
>>
>> Thank you for your considerations.
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2026 15:44:10 -0700
>> From: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_macieira.org>
>> To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]g
>> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from
>> void * to X *
>> Message-ID: <tG3Y0QpTSxOHMifwqBggyQ_at_macieira.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>> On Sunday, 20 September 2026 15:04:27 Pacific Daylight Time Ve?ified ? via Std-
>>> Proposals wrote:
>>> Casting explicitly because the element types aren't the same slows down
>>> development speed and adds no technical benefit.
>>
>> Except it does add technical benefit.
>>
>> // two unrelated types and not using the "initial member sequence" exception
>> // to the rule:
>> struct S { int i; };
>> struct T { char *ptr; };
>>
>> // compiles cleanly in C but is clearly wrong:
>> // in C++, at least you've had to explicitly choose to do it wrong
>> struct S s;
>> void *ptr = &s;
>> struct T *t = ptr;
>>
>> https://c.godbolt.org/z/sK7fEoMds
>>
>> --
>> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
>> Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: signature.asc
>> Type: application/pgp-signature
>> Size: 870 bytes
>> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
>> URL: <https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/attachments/20260920/e27265b6/attachment.sig>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 05:41:49 +0000
>> From: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>
>> To: "std-proposals_at_[hidden]" <std-proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org>
>> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from
>> void * to X *
>> Message-ID:
>> <DB3PR08MB89622D2EC20A6C108BDEC165C2842_at_DB3PR08MB8962.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Look who sent it.
>> This is not a real person.
>>
>>
>> From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Ve?ified ? via Std-Proposals
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 00:04
>> To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]socpp.org
>> Cc: Ve?ified ? <liamgraham_at_[hidden]>
>> Subject: [std-proposals] PROPOSAL: allow implicit conversion from void * to X *
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> C allows void * to X * implicit conversions.
>> However I found that C++ does not offer such feature, preferring developers to use static_cast
>>
>> Casting explicitly because the element types aren't the same slows down development speed and adds no technical benefit.
>>
>> So I propose that we allow C-style implicit conversions, to speed up ease of development.
>>
>> Thank you for your considerations.
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Std-Proposals Digest, Vol 90, Issue 27
>> *********************************************