220 9262 <20140211065430.GA4771@faust.lysator.liu.se> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Magnus Fromreide Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: add "implicit" keyword? Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:54:30 +0100 Lines: 33 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <20140211065430.GA4771@faust.lysator.liu.se> References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1392101668 22026 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2014 06:54:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:54:28 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDELLREETMBRBKES46LQKGQEQQ22QJY@isocpp.org Tue Feb 11 07:54:36 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-we0-f198.google.com ([74.125.82.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WD7En-0001om-Qx for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:54:33 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f198.google.com with SMTP id t60sf11663262wes.1 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:54:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=4bHGpjacpIy+MkILP5Fv2YwWfvAI615OhdReSPmGdRo=; b=LYG2O3Pi/8Ook8ZF3l2pcLqx0UjBQAPKcszJqSs5qxR5og5P9OuhUa2vmjbcArYGKH yJpHCLahCWiOAg7SMQdXxEWVqEWdvOoTanj3exYf4I7OZ4mMAjBPm37AANHY5NTucVhi OQ6bOXwGXzyXCp4j+bs/A2dzHsiDP+ImOn3Ebv5wosipOuwciHx5ZQrFZSSrless1288 MSYomKS5bNEJMWxC07ulgRwRp7GvN4yld9gIwgX/MbMphL7HR77etnfFT1y6kIIHzqrF fG5lnDj5lhI3z/VxT1vFjpTMZRbG6DgXNYzg/XZEwEs/N6RXQUeUM6mJ1tiVSdiDqTaq X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxpClcwa7pP8CZzEzOWDD9c80MlI+W28BdScMhObIT3gv+FTRRd3rXDfMHbWLAND1xyrYj X-Received: by 10.112.223.8 with SMTP id qq8mr15672717lbc.9.1392101673143; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:54:33 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.214.103 with SMTP id nz7ls331034lac.35.gmail; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:54:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.171.194 with SMTP id aw2mr156153lbc.46.1392101671939; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:54:31 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se. [2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mq2si9203268lbb.47.2014.02.10.22.54.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of magfr@lysator.liu.se designates 2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3; Original-Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5457D40048 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:54:31 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from faust.lysator.liu.se (faust.lysator.liu.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:17:f0a0::d3]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A53D40014 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:54:30 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by faust.lysator.liu.se (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:54:30 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Original-Sender: magfr@lysator.liu.se X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of magfr@lysator.liu.se designates 2001:6b0:17:f0a0::3 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=magfr@lysator.liu.se Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Disposition: inline Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:9262 Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:30:32AM -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Objective: > ---------- > Create a new keyword "implicit", having the meaning 'not > "explicit"'. That is, this keyword would annotate that a constructor > or conversion operator is allowed to be called in a manner that > would be denied by 'explicit'. I would expect a constructor marked as 'implicit' to be disallowed in explicit situations, so struct foo { implicit foo(int) { } }; foo f = 1; // Valid foo g(1); // Invalid but I admit to not seeing much value in it. As for the bikeshed, both 'not' and 'explicit' are already keywords, so why not spell it 'not explicit'? /MF -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .