On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:21:44 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:01:14 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
For example, use case that justifies operator overloading
(despite the danger) in my eyes is ability to replace built-in
types with custom ones. What is the similar rationale for
implicit conversion?
For exaple, for generic code:
...
So, what essentially is needed, is ability to implicitly convert
literals of built-in types to user types, not any possible
implicit conversion?
I think allowing it with such restrictions can be reasonably
clean.
