From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-20 16:48:32
Matt Calabrese wrote:
> I'd say it's much more analogous to conversions in C++ from a short unsigned
> int to an unsigned int being implicit. You don't lose any information in the
> conversion and the conversion makes perfectly logical sense. Forcing users
> to always be explicit is just making them write more unecessary code.
OK. I think I'll concede that it's my own fetish, bcause I think
implicit casting of int to unsigned int and vice versa is one of the
worst "features" of C++. I really, really wish they could make this a
compiler option somehow. But even then I couldn't use it, because
nothing in the standard library would compile.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk