https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7019

Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #15 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> ---
Remained issue will be fixed by issue 8864.

  struct S { this(int) { } }
  S[2] a = [1,2];  // Converted to: [S(1), S(2)]


(In reply to Denis Shelomovskij from comment #14)
> static assert(!__traits(compiles, { S2 s2 = { 5 }; })); // fails
> static assert(!__traits(compiles, { S2 s2 = { s: 5 }; })); // fails

These are expected behavior.
The target type of the argument '5' can be determined to S, so implicit
constructor call is handled.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7019

--- Comment #16 from Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #15)
> (In reply to Denis Shelomovskij from comment #14)
> > static assert(!__traits(compiles, { S2 s2 = { 5 }; })); // fails
> > static assert(!__traits(compiles, { S2 s2 = { s: 5 }; })); // fails
> 
> These are expected behavior.
> The target type of the argument '5' can be determined to S, so implicit
> constructor call is handled.

How does `S2 s2 = { 5 }` differ from `f(5)` or `S2 s2 = S2(5)`? IMO the only
clean rule is:

  "Implicit conversion exists iff target type is explicitly stated."

What is wrong with this rule? What rules and why are preferred?

--