On Monday, 22 February 2016 at 18:28:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 02/22/2016 08:20 PM, rsw0x wrote:
On Monday, 22 February 2016 at 18:11:58 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:07:26PM +0000, rsw0x via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Monday, 22 February 2016 at 17:29:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
>[...]
explicitly-implicit constructors are badly needed, I could
write an essay on this
AFAICT, implicit ctors are not supported by design.
T
It is a bad design.
It is arguable opinion.
Yeah. Sometimes having implicit conversions is great. Other
times, it creates tons of problems. C++ allows a lot of implicit
stuff, and it becomes really easy to have unexpected conversions
going on, and it can be difficult to figure out exactly what code
is being called. For the most part, D doesn't have any of those
problems, but it arguably loses some usability as a result. So,
it's highly debatable.
Personally, I think that the big place that implicit conversions
are a disaster is generic code. It makes it really easy to have
stuff pass template constraints due to implicit conversions and
then have the wrong behavior inside the templated code, because
the conversion is never forced, and it doesn't act the same way
as it would if the conversion had been forced and possibly even
ends up being converted for some of expressions in the function
and not converted in others. For non-templated code, it's a lot
more debatable, but when it comes to templated code, I really
wish that alias this didn't exist.
- Jonathan M Davis
