DIP 52 - Implicit conversions

[John Colvin]

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 11:42:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 09:15:56 UTC, Simen Kjærås 
> wrote:
>> C++ has shown that having implicit conversion *by default* is 
>> a really bad idea. For instance, C# also has implicit 
>> conversion, but you have explicitly ask for it. If there's any 
>> critique of that anywhere (I expect there to be), I've been 
>> unable to find it.
>
> ...Explicitly implicit conversions?

explicitly defined, implicitly applied.