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.

Reply via email to