Am 06.09.2013 15:01, schrieb Dicebot:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 11:32:11 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Its only a source of troubles in C++ because it is the default
behavior. But if you design a library it can make the usage of your
api easier and also you have a few more options to stay backwards
compatible with your old api.
Probably. But what is the gain? `foo(Foo(5))` looks better than `foo(5)`
to me in every possible way.
For example, use case that justifies operator overloading (despite the
danger) in my eyes is ability to replace built-in types with custom
ones. What is the similar rationale for implicit conversion?
Try implementing a custom string class in D that does not depend on the
GC and you will know. Your code will be littered with explict
constructions of strings, which makes it look totally ugly.
