[Issue 9112] Uniform construction for built-in types

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9112



--- Comment #14 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> 2012-12-07 10:57:47 PST ---
> So we're introducing C++-style casts into D? This means you can no longer
> search for 'cast' and expect to find all the unsafe casts in your code. I'm
> very much against this, and if I remember right Walter was also against this.

I'd actually argue for making it so that no explict casting is involved. It
could be restricted to cases where

T var = literal;

and

T var = T(literal);

would be identical. So, stuff like ubyte(12345) would be illegal whereas
cast(ubyte)12345 would be legal. It then looks like a C++ cast but isn't. It
solves the problem with generic code without causing any issues you get with
casts.

> We can also use a library template to do it without introducing new syntax. If
> orthogonality is needed because of metaprogramming then why not just implement
> a template in Phobos?

I tried that. Andrei rejected it, and it's not worth my time to fight him over
it. Not to mention, I've always thought that

auto i = new int(7);
auto j = new immutable(int)(5);

should be legal and think that having to do something like makeNew!int(7) is a
bit of a hack anyway, since it's specifically working around a deficiency in
the language.

> We really don't need 10 ways of doing the same thing with a different syntax..

The whole point of this is to try and make things more consistent, not less.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------