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 sti

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.