Add support implicit conversion between types

[Dicebot]

On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:21:44 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:01:14 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> 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?
>
> For exaple, for generic code:
> ...

So, what essentially is needed, is ability to implicitly convert 
literals of built-in types to user types, not any possible 
implicit conversion?

I think allowing it with such restrictions can be reasonably 
clean.