Re: About conversions

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <kwlS5.54873$U46.1727359@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
  "DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote:
> I've always thought of type conversions as equivalent to built
> in functions for converting types.  Looks like I'll have to
> change my way of thinking.


Conceptually, that *should* be a good model of type conversions.
It is true that this bizarre case disturbs this model, but in
fact nearly all programmers think of A(B) when they see it as
a functional form that converts B to the type A (after all why
did we choose the same syntax as a function for this purpose).

I am not sure the anomolous case is a good reason to change your
way of thinking here. Output conversions are very rare (much
much rarer than input conversions, depite the claim of the
previous message).


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.