Not sure what the point of the implicit operator overloads was.
I assume he didn't want to change the signature of the constructor for whatever reason, but still provide a small measure of discoverability (and tractability). Such things do happen.
In that case, I might have used an enum plus a second constructor to wrap the explicit conversation. Maybe that didn't occur to him, or maybe he had other constraints.
I assume he didn't want to change the signature of the constructor for whatever reason, but still provide a small measure of discoverability (and tractability). Such things do happen.
In that case, I might have used an enum plus a second constructor to wrap the explicit conversation. Maybe that didn't occur to him, or maybe he had other constraints.