On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 18:29, Gavin Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > What you suggesting, I believe, is to cast this difference in stone *and* > make it concrete in syntax. > Unfortunately, I think that is a very serious restriction. We may in the > future want to define conversions between reference types that *do* change > the representation, e.g. think of a conversion from one value class to > another (that is not related by subclassing).
The document covers and welcomes the idea that there are type conversions between value types (the new syntax isn't about primitive types, it is about type conversion). This is driven from the observation that type conversions are significantly more complex things than type checks, and that distinction is worthy of being highlighted. thanks for the comments Stephen
