On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > Hm. There seems to be significant opinion that there should not be any > implicit conversions. I am okay with operations as above, but would like > to hear the opinions of others.
If there is an agreed upon and expected semantic, having them are useful. In the wide-int world, which replaces double_int, I think there is an agreeable semantic and I think it is useful, so, I think we should plan on having them, though, I'd be fine with punting their implementation until such time as someone needs it. If no one every needs the routine, I don't see the harm in not implementing it. >> Did we somehow decide to not allow constructors? It's odd to convert to >> C++ and end up with static member functions resembling them ... > > Constructors are allowed, but PODs are often passed more efficiently. > That property seemed particularly important for double_int. Show us the difference in timing. Show us the generated code. I can't imagine that it could ever matter. I think a pretty abi is worth the cost.
