"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> To put it simply, I agree with this even on mere principle. I'm convinced >> that the current D behavior is a blatant violation of strong-typing and >> smacks way too much of C's so-called "type system". > > You're certainly not the first to feel this way about implicit > conversions. Niklaus Wirth did the same, and designed Pascal with no > implicit conversions. You had to do an explicit cast each time. > > Man, what a royal pain in the ass that makes coding in Pascal. > Straightforward coding, like converting a string of digits to an integer, > becomes a mess of casts. Even worse, casts are a blunt instrument that > *destroys* type checking (that wasn't so much of a problem with Pascal > with its stone age abstract types, but it would be killer for D). > > Implicit integral conversions are not without problems, but when I found C > I threw Pascal under the nearest bus and never wrote a line in it again. > The taste was so bad, I refused to even look at Modula II and its failed > successors. > > D has 12 integral types. Disabling implicit integral conversions would > make it unbearable to use.
Oh, I absolutely agree that implicit conversions are good in certain cases. I was only referring to implicit conversions between enums and the enum's base type (regardless of direction).
