unsigned policy (implicit conversions for complex?)

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> I notice the graph doesn't include complex types.
>>> Is there any reason why float shouldn't be automatically converted to 
>>> cfloat?
>>
>> Sharp eyes :o). I was simply too lazy to include complex types. 
>> Probably real-to-complex conversion should be allowed implicitly, too, 
>> as long as the basic principle of preserving value is respected.
> 
> Implicit conversions from floats to complex types was disallowed because 
> it caused overloading problems with math functions.
> 
> Separate functions for float and complex functions are desirable.

So the way things should be is: all meaning-preserving integral 
promotions should be kept; then, all implicit integral->floating point 
promotions should be severed; then, all implicit floating point->complex 
  should go.

Right?

Andrei