From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-21 05:29:00
On 2005-10-20, Deane Yang <deane_yang_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but C++ allows implicit conversion of int to float/short/char,
too, so perhaps C++ isn't the best example to use...
> > 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.
It's not just your fetish. I agree with you completely (on all
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk