https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11837
--- Comment #12 from Walter Bright <[email protected]> 2014-02-24 01:52:41 PST --- (In reply to comment #11) > Irrelevant as I'm not changing the way overloading works. Listing parts of > the > compiler is not the same as pointing out and actual problem. You are changing the way overloading works. Any time the implicit conversion rules are changed, and this is an implicit overloading rule change, the overloading changes, because overloading is all about implicit conversions. > Your response consisted of "there could be problems" without specifying any > actual problems. In the face of unspecified and potentially non-existent > problems, putting the code in the compiler and waiting for feedback seems > completely reasonable to me. > > > This proposal has not > > received much of any discussion. > > That's what we're doing now... It's pretty much just you and I, hardly representative. > > I also don't see memcmp usage as a compelling must-have use case. > > Given that A converts to B, and B converts to C, why doesn't A convert to C? > memcmp is a symptom of this strange limitation. Changing overloading rules can have unexpected and far reaching consequences. It is not very knowable in advance. I have severe reservations about doing this just for memcmp(). Need a better reason. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
