What did you think about an implicitConversionOp ?

[Paul Backus]

On Saturday, 26 December 2020 at 15:48:49 UTC, sighoya wrote:
> I like the idea of an `implicitConversionOp` or 
> `implicitCoercionOp` more than multiple alias this since the 
> operator is separated from the source type.

User-defined implicit conversions have been proposed many, many 
times, and Walter has always rejected them. For example, here's a 
reply of his to a post from 2004:

> Implicit casting is a great idea. It's problems don't become 
> apparent for years, when battle-weary programmers eventually 
> conclude that it just causes more problems than it is worth. I 
> know that it is difficult to be convincing in a few lines about 
> this, but when the complexity of the classes goes beyond the 
> trivial, the interactions between them and other classes with 
> implicit casting becomes remarkably impenetrable.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/cqoj59$sle$1@digitaldaemon.com