Iterator "convertable to" problem

[chris jefferson]

Martin Sebor wrote:

> chris jefferson wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Does this seem to be a correct reading of the standard? Do we need 
>> nasty static_casts all over the place?
>
>
> A pedantic reading of the standard would suggest that you do in
> fact need something like that in a number of other contexts as
> well (e.g., in predicate tests). There was a discussion of this
> problem on the reflector some time ago (see the thread starting
> with c++std-lib-10365(*)). The prevailing opinion was that even
> though nothing in the standard disallows such "subversive"
> operators it has never been the intent to require implementations
> to deal with them. Most people didn't think it was worth the
> trouble to add text to disallow them.
>
Thanks. I'm still trying to get an exact feel for how much I need to 
read what is written, and how much I need to apply common sense :)

> * Use c++std-ping@accu.org to retrieve archived messages.

Hmm.. I'm not entirely sure how this works and couln't find a guide... 
any pointers?

Thank you,
Chris