On Monday, 26 February 2018 at 19:32:44 UTC, ketmar wrote:
WebFreak001 wrote:
Now before you would have only been able to do this:
---
Nullable!Foo a;
foo(a, Nullable!int(5));
---
but now you should also be able to do:
---
Nullable!Foo x = null;
Nullable!Foo y = 5;
foo(null, 5);
please no. such unobvious type conversions goes out of control
really fast. there is a reason why D doesn't have such thing,
this is not an oversight, but a design decision.
How if you don't mind me asking? Seems like many features can go
out of control if used incorrectly, but that doesn't mean they're
a bad idea. I can understand they're a slippery slope, but it
seems some people think it's a completely bad idea.
It makes libraries *much* more intuitive and expressive (C++ just
got it wrong by choosing the wrong default). If you allow library
authors to opt in instead of opt out then it becomes a conscious
decision for one.
But at the very least, shouldn't we put some thought in to
allowing it for inherent sub-type relationships. Where an alias
this is used, there's probably such a relationship. BigInt to int
is another one. Algebraic types as mentioned falls under that
category as well.
And if that's also a no no, how about char -> int. Or int ->
float? Is ok?
Maybe there're some valid arguments, to disallow it *completely*
though?
Cheers
