The year is 2019

[Mike Franklin]

On Saturday, 27 July 2019 at 16:12:35 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

> We shouldn't let Walter disapproval effect us. If we think it a 
> really good idea then we should pursuit it.
>
> Walter thinks the opImplicitCast that we are proposing will be 
> the same thing as C++. It isn't. C++ genius "idea" is to have 
> implicit conversions opt-out rather then opt-in.

I salute you if you want to write a DIP, and I'll support in 
whatever way I can.  I might even be able to do the initial 
implementation, assuming I can figure it out.  That will help 
motivate the DIP.

Manu appears to prefer adding an `@implicit` attribute to the 
language for use on constructors and `opCast`.  I think that will 
also work.

I was leaning towards building on `alias this` simply because 
Walter has voiced opposition to implicit casting.  If we can get 
implicit casting approved, that would actually be my preference.

I think the DIP will have to build a very strong case including 
use cases and illustrating that it doesn't have the negative 
consequences of C++.  Then it might have a chance.  If the DIP 
fails, it will actually make any subsequent attempts just that 
much more difficult to justify, so it will need to be a damn good 
DIP.

Mike