Add support implicit conversion between types

[Benjamin Thaut]

Am 06.09.2013 15:01, schrieb Dicebot:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 11:32:11 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>> Its only a source of troubles in C++ because it is the default
>> behavior. But if you design a library it can make the usage of your
>> api easier and also you have a few more options to stay backwards
>> compatible with your old api.
>
> Probably. But what is the gain? `foo(Foo(5))` looks better than `foo(5)`
> to me in every possible way.
>
> For example, use case that justifies operator overloading (despite the
> danger) in my eyes is ability to replace built-in types with custom
> ones. What is the similar rationale for implicit conversion?

Try implementing a custom string class in D that does not depend on the 
GC and you will know. Your code will be littered with explict 
constructions of strings, which makes it look totally ugly.