From: giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl   
      
   Daniel Krügler wrote:   
      
   > bar(42)   
   >   
   > is an "implicit" conversion.   
      
   Certainly.   
      
   >   
   > In either case, the problem is the equivalence rule mentioned above. If   
   > you have a good alternative for this, please present this in more   
   > detail. IMO the hardest part is to find wording that specifies a new   
   > form of a semantics and to apply this new rule consistently in the   
   > standard - If you start with that work you may be surprised how deeply   
   > the term copy-initialization impacts the core language. I don't consider   
   > "just make my Foo a = 42; well-formed" as a solution. The actual work is   
   > to define a new form of semantics - this may turn out to require new   
   > syntax, too.   
      
   A new semantics for initialisation with = ?  How would it be different from   
   construction with ()?  Maybe we could just say that they are equivalent?   
      
   Thanks for your elaborate answer,   
   Chris   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)