"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jjqp0n$1pga$1...@digitalmars.com... > > What might make that a little confusing, though, is that string *literals* > which are not suffixed with c/w/d are *not* necessarily string, but rather > can acually *be* (ie, not "implicitly convertable to", but they actually > *are*) either string/wstring/dstring depending on context. If it can't be > inferred from context, *then* string is just simply assumed. >
I think Andrei calls that a polysemous type.
