[Issue 9112] Uniform construction for built-in types

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

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



--- Comment #16 from monarchdodra at gmail.com 2012-12-07 12:20:03 PST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > AFAIK, it's not exactly the same thing, as int(10) would be only a
> > constructor, so would not downcast.
> 
> I agree, but if you look at Kenji's proposal, he specifically says that there's
> a cast involved (which I'd missed when I read it the first time). So, Andrej's
> complaint is completely valid given Kenji's initial proposal. But if you fix it
> so that no cast is involved, then I think that it's fine.

I'm just wondering if that's *actually* what's going on, or if Kenji just
accidentally miss-commented it that way.

I don't know how to read compiler code, so I wouldn't know what he actually
did. It'd be nice if he did deliver a fail_compile checking this.

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