It should be used either static_cast or int() in both A and B examples.
I think int() makes it more readable, is there any reason to use static_cast?
-- Bazzy 15:07, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
- C-style cast is too generic to be useful (except when you're implementing std::addressof or offsetof). Especially when the purpose is to explain something. Editing to static cast --Cubbi 19:02, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
 structures without member variables
Is there a reason the structs in the examples do not have member variables? Does it make it a better example? Arbalest 14:47, 14 December 2012 (PST)
- It's to keep the example as minimal as possible. The definition of the structs is not really relevant.
- The example is there just to show what would compile and what not.
- --Bazzy 15:05, 14 December 2012 (PST)
 Multiple arguments
explicit on a constructor with multiple arguments has no effect, since such constructors cannot take part in implicit conversions. However, for the purpose of implicit conversion, explicit will have an effect if a constructor has multiple arguments and all but one of the arguments has a default value.
- wouldn't it be simpler to say that it has no effect on constructors that aren't converting constructors? --Cubbi (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (PDT)
- having looked at it, that would've been a tautology: converting constructors are defined as non-explicit constructors, regardless of the number of non-default arguments. --Cubbi (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2014 (PDT)