http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
--- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara <k.hara...@gmail.com> 2012-01-26 06:24:43 PST --- Is this a dup of 4875? Recently Walter commented in that issue, and marked it WONTFIX. He said: > Allowing such implicit conversions works in C++, but is considered a defect by > experienced C++ professionals. We won't repeat the mistake. But he doesn't mention about the inconsistency. We need more discussion. Personally implicit constructor call on initializer is useful, e.g. BigInt. It is more better that can specify implicit or explicit. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
