On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:05:51PM +0000, Michael V. Franklin via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 13:54:03 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
> > IMO, no character types should implicitly convert from integer
> > types. In fact, character types shouldn't convert from ANYTHING
> > (even other character types). We have so many problems with this.
>
> Is everyone in general agreement on this? Can anyone think of a
> compelling use case?
[...]
I am 100% for this change. I've been bitten before by things like this:
void myfunc(char ch) { ... }
void myfunc(int i) { ... }
char c;
int i;
myfunc(c); // calls first overload
myfunc('a'); // calls second overload (WAT)
myfunc(i); // calls second overload
myfunc(1); // calls second overload
There is no compelling use case for implicitly converting char types to
int. If you want to directly manipulate ASCII values / Unicode code
point values, a direct cast is warranted (clearer code intent).
Converting char to wchar (or dchar, or vice versa, etc.) implicitly is
also fraught with peril: if the char happens to be an upper byte of a
multibyte sequence, you *implicitly* get a garbage value. Not useful at
all. Needing to write an explicit cast will remind you to think twice,
which is a good thing.
T
--
Famous last words: I wonder what will happen if I do *this*...
