On 2015/06/30 01:02:31, dak wrote:
I vaguely remember that stuff could become a nuisance in connection
with numeric
promotion rules because promotion might get combined with implicit
conversion
Aha. One past experience involved a number-like class which could be
initialized by a double, and there were loads of cases where one would
not want an object of that class to be constructed by accident.
I'll check whether SCM("name") works. It's actually unlikely because
even if
C++ was able to use two implicit conversions in a row, it would still
have the
ambiguity of deciding between Scm_module ("name") and any
Scm_variable<...>
And I think another experience involved overloaded functions where the
possibility of implicit construction introduced ambiguity, but my memory
of this one is very vague.
Neither one seems to be a problem with your change, although adding
"explicit" anyway shouldn't hurt.
https://codereview.appspot.com/249920043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
