On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 00:37:32 d coder wrote:
> > That's not how you define implicit conversions in D. It's a weird hack
> > from C++.
>
> Thanks for clarification. I knew about alias this, but I thought it was in
> addition to constructor path.
Nope. It's the _only_ way to define implic
> That's not how you define implicit conversions in D. It's a weird hack
> from C++.
>
>
Thanks for clarification. I knew about alias this, but I thought it was in
addition to constructor path.
Regards
- Puneet
On Tuesday, 1 January 2013 at 17:27:10 UTC, d coder wrote:
I observed that struct type function call arguments do not
implicitly
convert even when I define a valid constructor for type
conversion.
That's not how you define implicit conversions in D. It's a weird
hack from C++.
In D, you use
