• Steven Schveighoffer (17/17) Nov 29 2007 When opImplicitCast comes along, if I do the following:
• Regan Heath (8/33) Nov 30 2007 My gut feeling is that it will not compile, unless you change "typedef"

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

When opImplicitCast comes along, if I do the following:

typedef int X;

struct Y
{
   X opImplicitCast() {...}
}

This should compile:

Y y;
X x = y;

Should this?

Y y;
int i = y;

(hint hint: I would like it NOT to compile)

Also, I know const is out and that's great and all, but when do we get 
opImplicitCast?

Not to be pushy or anything :)

-Steve 

Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 When opImplicitCast comes along, if I do the following:
 
 typedef int X;
 
 struct Y
 {
    X opImplicitCast() {...}
 }
 
 This should compile:
 
 Y y;
 X x = y;
 
 Should this?
 
 Y y;
 int i = y;
 
 (hint hint: I would like it NOT to compile)
 
 Also, I know const is out and that's great and all, but when do we get 
 opImplicitCast?
 
 Not to be pushy or anything :)

My gut feeling is that it will not compile, unless you change "typedef" 
to "alias" and then it will.

I believe D's typedef creates such a unique/separate type that even 
though it is based on 'int' (in this case) it does not even 'inherit' 
the implicit conversions of 'int', let alone implicitly convert to it's 
base type.

R