On Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 15:42:29 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
On Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 15:33:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Again: not the charter of this DIP, so you should ask
yourself, not us, this question.
Look, I understand it can be frustrating to have a concrete
design proposal derailed by a myriad of speculative questions.
But if we suspect that design decision of a DIP might interact
poorly with other plausible future D features, should we not at
least express our concerns and hopes? By the time the other
DIPs come out it might be too late to address the concerns.
In any case, I hope my comments were not too out of bounds of
the discussion. If so, I'm sorry.
I like the idea of implicit conversions (until I've been
convinced otherwise at least), but I don't necessarily think this
DIP will interact poorly with it. They could be implemented with
a new opImplicitCast. Less elegantly, you could have special
behavior when @implicit is used with opCast.
