There was a brief preliminary discussion of this at the SIP retreat today. Summary:
- All committee members who expressed opinions were either strongly or weakly in favor of the proposal in general.
- There doesn’t seem to be any committee interest in the all-conversions-must-be-explicit option.
- Nor any interest in bringing back
implicit def. - Martin and several others were sympathetic to the concerns of @Ichoran and others about overlap with extension methods, but no one on the committee sees a good way to address them, either.
- @nicolasstucki thinks we should consider somehow supporting path-dependent conversions. I invite him to post here about it.
Other questions and points didn’t come up. We’ll re-discuss after this thread’s one-month period has passed.