Skip to content

[BUG] No way to represent explicit (or implicit) conversion operators #667

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
farmerpiki opened this issue Sep 9, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

[BUG] No way to represent explicit (or implicit) conversion operators #667

farmerpiki opened this issue Sep 9, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@farmerpiki
Copy link
Contributor

farmerpiki commented Sep 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

At the moment there seems to be no allowed way of typing a type conversion operator.

I would expect a syntax to be something like:
operator type_name: () = ...
type_name: @operator () = ...
or maybe (though this would be harder to implement)
operator as: (out result) = ...
@farmerpiki farmerpiki added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 9, 2023
@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

JohelEGP commented Sep 9, 2023

That's right.
See also #583,
and in particular #583 (comment).

@JohelEGP JohelEGP mentioned this issue Dec 28, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@JohelEGP @farmerpiki