On Sunday, 16 February 2025 at 17:04:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[..]
>

Ok, gotcha. I suspected that is what you meant and agree with that (in my example an implicit match would more sense on 'long', not 'bool').

Thanks for the detailed answer.

On Monday, 17 February 2025 at 09:17:24 UTC, ShadoLight wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 February 2025 at 17:04:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> [..]
>>
>
> Ok, gotcha. I suspected that is what you meant and agree with that (in my example an implicit match would more sense on 'long', not 'bool').
>
> Thanks for the detailed answer.

If compilers could read minds, implicit matching would always be perfect)

On Monday, 17 February 2025 at 09:33:32 UTC, mig09 wrote:
> On Monday, 17 February 2025 at 09:17:24 UTC, ShadoLight wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 February 2025 at 17:04:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> [..]
>>>
>>
>> Ok, gotcha. I suspected that is what you meant and agree with that (in my example an implicit match would more sense on 'long', not 'bool').
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed answer.
>
> If compilers could read minds, implicit matching would always be perfect)

True. And then compilers would also know that, of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most!