Checking for possibility of implicit conversions

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jjqp0n$1pga$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> What might make that a little confusing, though, is that string *literals* 
> which are not suffixed with c/w/d are *not* necessarily string, but rather 
> can acually *be* (ie, not "implicitly convertable to", but they actually 
> *are*) either string/wstring/dstring depending on context. If it can't be 
> inferred from context, *then* string is just simply assumed.
>

I think Andrei calls that a polysemous type.