string literal string and immutable(char)* overload ambiguity

[Jonathan Marler]

On Saturday, 4 August 2018 at 12:16:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 8/3/18 10:26 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 15:07:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/31/18 10:13 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>> Absolutely, I didn't realize this was an ambiguity. It should 
>>> be the same as foo(long) vs. foo(int) with foo(1).
>>>
>> 
>> +1 for this
>> 
>> Although there is a solution for this today, i.e.
>> 
>> foo(cast(string)"baz");
>> foo("baz".ptr));
>> 
>> I see no reason why `string` shouldn't have precedence over 
>> `immutable(char)*`, especially since you can always explicitly 
>> choose the pointer variant with `.ptr.
>> 
> Let me rewrite your solution for int vs. long:
>
> foo(cast(int)1);
> foo(1L);
>
> You like that too? ;)
>
> "baz" is a string, that's its primary type. That it can be used 
> for a const(char)* is nice for legacy C code, but shouldn't get 
> in the way of its natural type.
>
> -Steve

Yeah I definitely agree.  Though there is a solution, it's ugly.  
Making string have precedence over char pointers seems like only 
positives from what I can tell.