TDPL reaches Thermopylae level

[Pelle Månsson]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pelle Månsson <pelle.mansson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michel Fortin
>>> <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-10-27 09:07:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>>>
>>>>> My current thought is to ascribe lhs ~ rhs the same type as lhs (thereby
>>>>> making ~ consistent with ~= by making lhs ~= rhs same as lhs = lhs ~
>>>>> rhs) in
>>>>> case lhs is a string type. If lhs is a character type, the result type
>>>>> is
>>>>> obviously the same as rhs.
>>>> Seems the most intuitive option to me. Also, it makes "a ~= b" equivalent
>>>> to
>>>> "a = a ~ b" which is always nice.
>>> And that kind of suggests to me that even  a = b  should work.
>>> It has many of the same characteristics as ~=.  It's pretty
>>> unambiguous what you'd expect to happen if not an error.
>>>
>>>
>>> --bb
>> int a;
>> float b = 2.1;
>> a = b;
>> also unambiguous?
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but wstring <-> string
> <-> dstring are all lossless conversions.  That isn't the case with
> int and float.
> 
> --bb
They are?

...Then what is the point of wstring, dstring?