implicit construction operator

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:45:03PM +0000, TheFlyingFiddle via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 26 February 2018 at 21:30:09 UTC, aliak wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 February 2018 at 19:32:44 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> > > WebFreak001 wrote:
> > And if that's also a no no, how about char -> int. Or int -> float?
> > Is ok?
> > 
> > Maybe there're some valid arguments, to disallow it *completely*
> > though?
> > 
> > Cheers
> 
> I would be very happy if char -> int and int -> float was not implicit.

Yeah, implicit char -> int is totally evil, and should never have gotten
into the language in the first place. To wit:

	void foo(dchar ch) {
		backup_files();
	}
	void foo(byte b) {
		format_disk();
	}
	foo('a');	// guess which one gets called.


> This has happened to me enough times that i remember it:
> 
> float a = some_int / some_other_int; //ops i don't think this was what I wanted.
> constrast
> float a = some_int.to!float / some_other_int.to!float; //ugly but at-least its clear.

Actually, since operations involving float are "infectious", all you
need is:

	float a = some_int.to!float / some_other_int;


> Not really a big deal (and auto kind of ruins it) but it would make
> stuff consistent between user types and built in ones.

Not sure what you mean here.  In a user type, if opBinary!"/" returns an
int, then you still have the same problem.


T

-- 
He who laughs last thinks slowest.