From 8915476734808811757 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,b43d17d27e7171b0 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: vaps4bm@prism.gatech.edu (Brian McNamara!) Subject: Re: explicit operator T() Date: 2000/12/06 Message-ID: <90m70n$ebt$1@news-int.gatech.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 701894944 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ References: <3A2D10EE.35544D0A@aixigo.de> <3a2d965b.14703165@news.csrlink.net> X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 976135007 mail2news:11476 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Dec 2000 20:19:35 GMT Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ jpotter@falcon.lhup.edu (John Potter) once said: >On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:13:54 GMT, Daniel Frey wrote: >> sorry if this was suggested / discussed before, but would it make sense >> to allow declaring a cast-operator as 'explicit'? >There is quite a history available on deja for this. The basic result. > explicit operator int () const; >is spelled > int as_int () const; >or whatever other naming convention you may like. ...thus making it impossible to write template code that does explicit conversions. For genericity's sake, cast-operators should be able to be "explicit", just like constructors. -- Brian McNamara --- [ 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.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html ] [ Note that the FAQ URL has changed! Please update your bookmarks. ]