[Issue 7019] implicit constructors are inconsistently allowed

d-bugmail at puremagic.com d-bugmail at puremagic.com
Thu Jan 26 06:24:47 PST 2012


http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019



--- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg at gmail.com> 2012-01-26 06:24:43 PST ---
Is this a dup of 4875?

Recently Walter commented in that issue, and marked it WONTFIX.

He said:
> Allowing such implicit conversions works in C++, but is considered a defect by
> experienced C++ professionals. We won't repeat the mistake.

But he doesn't mention about the inconsistency. We need more discussion.

Personally implicit constructor call on initializer is useful, e.g. BigInt.
It is more better that can specify implicit or explicit.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------


More information about the Digitalmars-d-bugs mailing list