https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11837
--- Comment #17 from Andrei Alexandrescu <and...@erdani.com> 2014-03-09 09:48:56 PDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > I agree it's an exception that "str" converts to const(char)* but not > > subsequently to const(void)*. However, the conversion to char* is already a > > known concession for the sake of C string APIs. I don't think we need to go > > all > > the way into the rabbit hole. (Also the example is obscure.) > > > > You seem to be saying it's not worth the effort to fix, if I understand > correctly. We've already spent a lot more time arguing about it than I spent > fixing it, so I'd really like to know why you think preventing the fix is > worth > all this effort? I'm saying we shouldn't have a compromise force others after it. Conversion to untyped pointers is bad and should be avoided. So I'm arguing against what I believe is a bad thing. Also the supporting examples are specious and non-idiomatic D. > > @yebblies sorry I'll close this and the pull request. Feel free to reopen if > > you feel strongly about this. > > The usual arguments for rejecting an enhancement are that it breaks existing > code, or it complicates the language. So far it seems this does neither, in > fact it simplifies the language. It makes the language worse. > Just like Walter, you've failed to provide a single reason why this special > case should exist. > > I just can't accept that - it doesn't make any sense. > > I appreciate you taking the time to look at this, but without any evidence > that > this is a bad change I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Untyped pointers are bad. We are providing conversion to immutable(char)* as a compromise. Please let's not make nice string literals implicitly convert all the way down to void*. I'll leave it to you to close this. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------