http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9112
--- Comment #16 from [email protected] 2012-12-07 12:20:03 PST --- (In reply to comment #15) > > AFAIK, it's not exactly the same thing, as int(10) would be only a > > constructor, so would not downcast. > > I agree, but if you look at Kenji's proposal, he specifically says that > there's > a cast involved (which I'd missed when I read it the first time). So, Andrej's > complaint is completely valid given Kenji's initial proposal. But if you fix > it > so that no cast is involved, then I think that it's fine. I'm just wondering if that's *actually* what's going on, or if Kenji just accidentally miss-commented it that way. I don't know how to read compiler code, so I wouldn't know what he actually did. It'd be nice if he did deliver a fail_compile checking this. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
