DIP 52 - Implicit conversions

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 12/12/13 00:08, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> To be honest, I don't find that subtle - it's basic dimensional analysis. :p

The maths is simple, the subtleties come with the social side of managing a 
codebase and the potential for someone to want some feature because it serves 
their use-case, and a reviewer accidentally missing that it might open a 
horrible can of worms somewhere else ... :-)

> I'm certain it would not. At least in my mind, that's almost as bad as allowing
> implicit conversion from string to integer, based on the confused notion that it
> *might* be valid.

TBH I agree.  I just didn't want to assume that there wasn't some valid case 
someone else might make, that I hadn't considered.