What did you think about an implicitConversionOp ?

[sighoya]

On Sunday, 27 December 2020 at 09:27:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It's like burying your dead cat in Pet Sematary. Sure, it's 
> cool when it comes back to life, but you'll be 
> sssss-ooooo-rrrrr-eeeee !

Hmm, I wasn't aware that Walter is also a poet :).

> I'm speaking here from C++'s experience.

When talking about the merits of certain features and at the same 
time referring to their use in C++ inevitably biases the balance 
of pro and cons to the contra site.

The point is, however, could we do it better than C++?

Regarding templates, we already did.

> 1. implicit declaration of variables

Did you the mention `auto` in conjunction with implicit 
conversion?


> 2. macros

What has implicit conversion to do with macros, did you mean 
templates?
As a counterargument, we already have classes and interfaces 
leading to the same characteristics regarding template overload 
resolution.

> 3. operator overloading for non-arithmetic purposes
> 4. implicit conversion operator overloads

Well I admit the evolving problem of ambiguity of implicit 
conversions in overload resolution.
But what is harder for operator overloading than for normal 
method overloading?
Overusing operators for nonsensical operations is already a code 
smell.