From -531099545252165134 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,5056bc953972b4f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-26 10:05:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!devnull From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Rationale for 7.1.2/6 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Organization: AT&T Shannon Laboratory, Florham Park, NJ Lines: 24 Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <2ONE9.4412$sW.228339932@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1038333923 16248 10.0.0.1 (26 Nov 2002 18:05:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:05:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from mulga.cs.mu.oz.au ([128.250.1.22]) by news.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Gk5J-0004Dv-00 for mail2news@news.news.demon.net; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:05:21 +0000 X-Received: by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU id FAA07103; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:05:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-Nntp-Posting-Host: europa.research.att.com X-User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.7 79368 gAQHcJxN094731 mailbox3.ucsd.edu) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,UNDISC_RECIPS,USER_AGENT version=2.41 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:15511 Carl> 7.1.2/6 says "The explicit specifier shall be used only in Carl> declarations of constructors within a class declaration; see Carl> 12.3.1." Carl> Why? In particular, it seems to me that it'd be useful to be Carl> able to apply 'explicit' to conversion operators (e.g. operator Carl> int()). Carl> Is there some reason that explicit was so severely limited by Carl> definition? Yes--the reason is that we couldn't figure out how explicit conversion operators should interact with inheritance. Constructors aren't inherited, so they don't have that problem. -- Andrew Koenig, ark@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]