On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote: > On 8/7/12, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > Hm. There seems to be significant opinion that there should not be any >> > implicit conversions. I am okay with operations as above, but would like >> > to hear the opinions of others. >> >> If there is an agreed upon and expected semantic, having them are useful. >> In the wide-int world, which replaces double_int, I think there is an >> agreeable semantic and I think it is useful, so, I think we should plan on >> having them, though, I'd be fine with punting their implementation until >> such time as someone needs it. If no one every needs the routine, I don't >> see the harm in not implementing it. > > At present, there are no functions equivalent to (double_int + int), so > there can be no expressions that need this overload. I have no objection > to adding such an overload, but if there are no objections, I would rather > do it as a separate patch.
Sure. It's just one of the possibilities to clean up existing code. Richard. > -- > Lawrence Crowl
