Should you be able to initialize a float with a char?

[Paul Backus]

On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 16:56:50 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 20 May 2022 at 16:02:15 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
> wrote:
>>> It implies all implicit conversions should be removed.
>>
>> No, not at all. bool can implicitly convert to int, char is 
>> probably fine also (thinking about the OP of this thread, I'm 
>> actually coming around to realize, it's not that bad). I don't 
>> like integers converting *to* bool or char (or dchar, etc). 
>> That would stop this problem from happening. bool being 
>> treated as an integral type is suspect.
>>
>
> In fact, it doesn't even require implicit conversion to be 
> removed at all. Matching bool in this case really doesn't make 
> sense, and even by the letter of the spec I'm not sure this is 
> right.
>
> Indeed, one of the constructor in an exact match, while the 
> other is an implicit conversion match.

In this example, both `int` and `bool` are implicit conversions, 
because the type of `E.a` is `E`, not `int`. So partial ordering 
is used to disambiguate, and the compiler (correctly) determines 
that the `bool` overload is more specialized than the `int` 
overload, because you can pass a `bool` argument to an `int` 
parameter but not the other way around.

As soon as you allow the `E` -> `bool` implicit conversion (via 
VRP), everything else follows.