On 8/14/2012 14:06, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> However, char, the type of a single character, apparently covers the BMP
> only. If you're going to go to all the trouble of actually supporting
> Unicode, why not support the whole thing?

You do know that unicode has evolved too, right?

> Yeah, sounds like more the sort of thing you'd expect in a scripting language.

No. It's perfectly reasonable rules based on static types.

> OTOH, it appears that it's the only autoconversion that can happen.

Not at all. Indeed, you can declare your own implicit conversions for your 
own types.

> Pop quiz: if x is a string and y is a delegate, does it do delegate
> concatenation or string concatenation?

It fails to compile, because there's no implicit conversion between the two.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message