On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 04:40, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why not
> > @copy?
> >
> > @copy this(ref Foo other) { }
> >
> > It can be read as copy constructor, which would be excellent
> > for helping people learn what it is doing (spec lookup).
> >
> > Also can we really not come up with an alternative bit of code
> > than the tupleof to copying wholesale? E.g. super(other);
>
> I could not agree more. @implicit can mean many things, while
> @copy is much more specific... For what is worth I vote for @copy
> ! :)@implicit may be attributed to any constructor allowing it to be invoked implicitly. It's the inverse of C++'s `explicit` keyword. As such, @implicit is overwhelmingly useful in its own right. This will address my single biggest usability complaint of D as compared to C++. @implicit is super awesome, and we must embrace it.
