On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 02:32:59 UTC, Manu wrote:
Seriously, if I was making this proposal to you, and you were
in my
position... there is no way in hell that you'd allow any of us
to slip
something so substantial by like that with the wave of a hand.
This DIP depends on @implicit. How can you argue otherwise?
Nothing is being slipped by as far as I'm concerned. @implicit is
solely introduced in the DIP as a marker for the copy
constructor, and it doesn't seem like it's intended for anything
further than avoiding breaking code. It feels to me like you're
making a mountain out of an ant hill.
Still, regardless of what the intention was, @implicit was a poor
choice of words for exactly this reason.
The DIP itself seems solid. Makes me a little nervous to be
introducing copy constructors, but if it's really that untenable
to typecheck qualified postblits, then I'm all for it. One step
closer to eliminating Qualified Hell when wrapping structs in
other structs.
