On 2015/06/30 01:16:10, Dan Eble wrote:
Neither one seems to be a problem with your change, although adding
"explicit"
anyway shouldn't hurt.
Ok, I checked that neither in assignments nor initializations "ccc" goes to SCM, and GCC does not even mention considering it: it just says that it cannot convert const char * to SCM. Neither does GCC consider the use of a const char * as a function, and again the error message does not even mention considering it. So there does not appear to be _any_ actual improvement to be gained by using "explicit" apart from feeling safer without reading through 3 chapters of the standard. Which _is_ a tangible benefit for the programmers if not the program. However, "shouldn't hurt" is nice, but we don't have "explicit" anywhere else in our code base and it is probably C++98 or something, not "classic" C++. That always has a bit of a risk for crossbuilding LilyPond with GUB, or for others compiling it with older or different compilers. When using it because of the presence of operator SCM, there would be several other unrelated classes which should also be getting it. So I'll leave this as a topic for a different issue. It does not seem necessary, carries some risk of problems of its own, and it would warrant using across the board in our codebase, not just in this new addition. https://codereview.appspot.com/249920043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
