On 8/7/12, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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.
At present, there are no functions equivalent to (double_int + int), so there can be no expressions that need this overload. I have no objection to adding such an overload, but if there are no objections, I would rather do it as a separate patch. -- Lawrence Crowl
