fix: make Variant conversion operator explicit #428
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sangelovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2024
Having explicit conversion operator is a good practice according to the C++ core guidelines, as it makes the code safer and better follows the principle of least astonishment. Also, it is consistent with the standard library style, where wrappers like std::variant, std::any, std::optional... also do not provide an implicit conversion to the underlying type. Last but not least, it paves the way for the upcoming std::variant <-> sdbus::Variant implicit conversions without surprising behavior in some edge cases.
sangelovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2024
Having explicit conversion operator is a good practice according to the C++ core guidelines, as it makes the code safer and better follows the principle of least astonishment. Also, it is consistent with the standard library style, where wrappers like std::variant, std::any, std::optional... also do not provide an implicit conversion to the underlying type. Last but not least, it paves the way for the upcoming std::variant <-> sdbus::Variant implicit conversions without surprising behavior in some edge cases.
sangelovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2024
Having explicit conversion operator is a good practice according to the C++ core guidelines, as it makes the code safer and better follows the principle of least astonishment. Also, it is consistent with the standard library style, where wrappers like std::variant, std::any, std::optional... also do not provide an implicit conversion to the underlying type. Last but not least, it paves the way for the upcoming std::variant <-> sdbus::Variant implicit conversions without surprising behavior in some edge cases.
sangelovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2024
Having explicit conversion operator is a good practice according to the C++ core guidelines, as it makes the code safer and better follows the principle of least astonishment. Also, it is consistent with the standard library style, where wrappers like std::variant, std::any, std::optional... also do not provide an implicit conversion to the underlying type. Last but not least, it paves the way for the upcoming std::variant <-> sdbus::Variant implicit conversions without surprising behavior in some edge cases.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This:
std::variant,std::any,std::optional... also do not provide an implicit conversion to the underlying typestd::variant<->sdbus::Variantimplicit conversions without surprising behavior in some edge cases