deprecating T(V) as c-style cast for POD T in favor of initializationsemantics - Off topic kinda

[Gianni Mariani]

So I was put straight that double(v) is the same as (double)(v)
recently and I'm somewhat surprised. I'm not the only one.

I think T(V) should have exactly the same semantics as
static_cast<T>(V) for POD T and I'm willing to bet you'll find few C++
developers that would object.

What I'd like to propose is that the c-style cast interpretation of
T(V) for POD T be the same as initialization of a temporary object T
with a value V. i.e. T id(V).

The rationale is that T(V) being a C-ctyle cast is far more dangerous
than using a c-style cast because use of T(V) in templates is often
used to initialize a temporary T and the fact that it becomes a c-
style cast in some cases and is an initialization in others would be
mostly unintended.

I do believe that most current uses of the T(V) syntax for POD T would
be in cases were the developer intended a static cast or
initialization so there would be very few cases where this would be
problematic. Deprecating the c-ctyle cast meaning should have minimal
undesired impact.

I'd like to hear how others feel about this.

 

[Ian Collins]

So I was put straight that double(v) is the same as (double)(v)
recently and I'm somewhat surprised. I'm not the only one.

I think T(V) should have exactly the same semantics as
static_cast<T>(V) for POD T and I'm willing to bet you'll find few C++
developers that would object.

What I'd like to propose is that the c-style cast interpretation of
T(V) for POD T be the same as initialization of a temporary object T
with a value V. i.e. T id(V).

The rationale is that T(V) being a C-ctyle cast is far more dangerous
than using a c-style cast because use of T(V) in templates is often
used to initialize a temporary T and the fact that it becomes a c-
style cast in some cases and is an initialization in others would be
mostly unintended.

Well it certainly isn't a C style cast for pointers. You can't write

void* p;

int* n(p);