Quote Originally Posted by nuzzle View Post
Since you're suggesting this the burden of proving its correctness falls upon you. You'll have to point out the relevant sections in the C++ standard. Stretching a language isn't wrong but you need to formally ensure it didn't break. Testing is not enougth.

And not everything that's allowed is good programming practice. It may lead to brittle and error-prone code. This is especially true with C++. It's a very potent language that must be handled with care. It's easy to shoot oneself in the foot. In fact Java came about as a direct response to this problem.

I'd say Pseudopointer offers an interesting combination of useless functionality with naive and ignorant implementation. It's definately a strong candidate for the C++ Hall of Infamy.
useless functionality? since this is just another way of doing things and it's working so probably you have no idea what's going on at all.
the implementation works for me, considering that the code is not even the point of all this, so your logic is flawed getting here with such conclusion, by mixing pseudopointers with one or other code. I would ask you "what the hell" has a code or an implementation, to do with the pseudopointers themselves? the code was just used to point out what is this all about. Just look at you how ignorant you have been, by not readn the entire thread.