On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:15:21 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 06.09.2013 15:01, schrieb Dicebot:
Probably. But what is the gain? `foo(Foo(5))` looks better
than `foo(5)`
to me in every possible way.
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?
Try implementing a custom string class in D that does not
depend on the GC and you will know. Your code will be littered
with explict constructions of strings, which makes it look
totally ugly.
Could you not just implement a .str property that does the
conversion? Surely littering code with .str isn't too ugly?
I understand the desire for it, but implicit coercions truly are
evil.
