From: Moore, Paul (paul.moore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-29 04:33:41
From: Greg Colvin [mailto:gcolvin_at_[hidden]]
> From: Lutz Kettner <kettner_at_[hidden]>
> > So I would like to see the (exact) constructor from
> > double, but I can also perfectly understand if it will
> > be a cast-like function call.
> Why not an explicit constructor?
My personal view is that constructors (even explicit ones) and functions
give differing impressions to the user. In this case, I would worry that
having an explicit constructor would encourage people to use it without
being aware of the subtle and complex issues which this thread has exposed.
Having to use a function (and even more so, having to choose which of two
functions with differing semantics to use) makes people stop and think a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk