DIP 52 - Implicit conversions

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 11/12/13 13:44, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> I've tried to figure out good ways to add some sorely-needed implicit
> conversions to the language, but I'm sure there are details that need to be
> ironed out. In other words - destroy!

Since you brought up std.complex: some of the issues here are subtle.  For 
example, it's appropriate to allow implicit conversion from numerical => Complex 
(although this can be done fairly readily by just calling complex(x) where x is 
a numerical type); it's also appropriate to allow implicit conversion from 
Imaginary => Complex; but it'd be wrong to allow implicit conversion from 
numerical => Imaginary.

Conversely, I'm not certain whether it'd be appropriate to allow implicit 
conversion Complex => numerical or Complex => Imaginary, even if the imaginary 
or real parts respectively were zero.