Thank you for the response. I still don’t understand why it would be necessary for C++ to default to non-explicit constructors when C at the time did not have c

Thank you for the response. I still don’t understand why it would be necessary for C++ to default to non-explicit constructors when C at the time did not have constructors and did not have constructor-like struct initialization that mimicked non-explicit constructors. It seems like an unforced error in the language design, rather than a concession to backwards-compatibility.