On Friday, 14 February 2025 at 15:58:26 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
In your example, both overloads have match level 2: "match with implicit conversions". So the compiler attempts to figure out which one is more specialized by checking whether the parameters of one overload can be used to call the other overload.
Yes. But there could be another level (2b?) "match with implicit conversion and signedness change", as new tiebreaker. This would be really easy to implement, and I can't see it causing any problems, as it would only allow to distinguish things that are today an error. So no code breakage.
Oops--it turns out both overloads are equally specialized!
This is what I want to be fixed. For a human it is obvious which of the two is a better match. Lets add a rule so that the compiler can also see it!
