On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 16:03, Gordon Woodhull <gordon@woodhull.com> wrote:
On May 4, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Scott McMurray wrote:
The scary implicit conversions might even make some sense when there's no destination type: int i = convert(x);
Please read the posts (esp Thomas Heller's and Christopher Jefferson's) about how implicit conversions break template functions and auto. They're more than just scary.
I completely agree they're not appropriate in the normal path. But there's a difference between having explicit conversions from convert<int>::from(x) and from convert(x) Because in the former there's enough information to determine the result type. In the latter there isn't, so expecting it to return anything other than a proxy is illogical. The idea was simply to have a way to prevent the need for repeating the type in both 03 and 0x: int i = convert(x); auto i = convert(x).to<int>(); "i" being a proxy in auto i = convert<int>::from(x); is weird, I agree. "i" being a proxy in auto i = convert(x); is perfectly reasonably, since convert(x) visibly can't possibly have figured out the right type. But sure, the problem with template functions is perhaps a deal-breaker. ~ Scott