Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] Final part of c++/26099, __is_convertible_to

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> > Ok, thanks for the additional details. Of course I agree that delaying
> > the creation of a dummy object as much as possible is an excellent idea.
> > Note that really the problem isn't only with user type conversions, it's
> > also with access checking, ambiguities... in short, as far as I can see,
> > convert_like_real, called by perform_implicit_conversions, does *a lot*
> > of work.
> >    
> Well, that's true, but do you need all of that?  Some of those checks
> are for things that really do need an expression.
I see. My "new" plan then is trying to figure out which checks can be 
made simpler when only the types count. Hopefully I will find the code 
easy to understand from that point of view (I'm not completely 
optimistic ;) ... Besides, ambiguities, access checks, etc, should be 
pulled from somewhere, because implicit_conversion by itself doesn't do 
that. I'm thinking that maybe we can discuss face to face some details 
of my ongoing work in Ottawa?!?

Thanks,
Paolo.