What did you think about an implicitConversionOp ?
Mike
slavo5150 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 27 14:39:52 UTC 2020
On Saturday, 26 December 2020 at 15:48:49 UTC, sighoya wrote:
> What is your opinion regarding this?
There have been a number of proposals that have attempted to
address the niche that implicit conversion operators fill,
including...
1. Implicit conversion operators
2. Implicit constructors
3. Multiple alias this
As I recall, the only one that has not been outright rejected is
multiple alias this (https://wiki.dlang.org/DIP66). In fact, it
has been officially approved! But, the implementation
(https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8378) was never thoroughly
reviewed let alone accepted, so it's unclear where things stand.
Walter's primary objection, as I understood it, was the
complexity it introduced for classes and its interplay with the
inheritance hierarchy. Structs don't have an inheritance
hierarchy, so I proposed a very simple solution: Multiple alias
this for structs only. Classes already have what they need with
D's kick-ass meta programming and multiple interface inheritance.
It's only structs that really need such a feature. I wrote a
slightly more detailed brain dump at
https://forum.dlang.org/post/vggskphkqxtriqnavmnf@forum.dlang.org, so I refer the reader there.
Multiple alias this is already an approved DIP, so perhaps by
reducing its scope to just structs, it may just need a champion
willing to see an implementation through to completion.
With multiple alias this for structs, implicit conversion may not
be needed.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list