On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 10:35, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > [...] > > Now that I understand the implicit call `@implicit` makes sense > to me but I'm convinced it'll confuse more people than not. I'll > see if I can come up with a better name.
You don't find 'implicit' satisfactory as an obvious and intuitive complement to 'explicit' in C++? I think the name's perfect, but I need to know it works in general to find it acceptable. As a marker used in this one case, it's a terrible name, as a generalised concept, it's perfect.
