Funny. I think we are in complete agreement. I'm just adding a little more than what you are saying. See the source below for a simple and maybe surprising characteristic of marking a particularly problematic conversion explicit. (For full effect remove the explicit keyword and try again. Most programmers are still surprised by it. This is just the most obvious example.) What we both say: marking a single conversion explicit means that it isn't an option in implied circumstances. (I'm ignoring the possibility of a special 'bool' case.) I'm just saying that, like constructors, the compiler may find a way to make the implied conversion through other means even if the relevant source or target is marked as being an explicit conversion. (This was actually the intended consequence even if it does cause problems.) Or, in other words, marking a certain conversion with explicit prevents it from causing problems related to overload resolution in the face of... secondary--^_^--unrelated conversions.
That's true. Now, stop being [...] same thing differently.
I hope my interpretation is correct. It lays the groundwork for a stronger type system in the future.
Yes, I think that your [...] conversion with if (a).
This is what I was talking about in "Anyway, they, the [...] those same examples.".
Initially, I was convinced [...] and converts to an int.
When you alerted me to the current wording allowing for the possibility of the intended special 'bool' behavior I reread CornedBee's comments. I've just assumed he was under the same impression as you. In the context of such special behavior his comments make a lot more sense.
Indeed, hence I notified [...] you wish to.
std::cout << "EXPLICIT!\n";
std::cout << "IMPLIED!\n";
void tester(const test&)
std::cout << "TEST!\n";