On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 07:40:32 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
But there's a super explicit `@implicit` thing written right
there... so should we expect that an *explicit* call to the
copy constructor is not allowed? Or maybe it is allowed and
`@implicit` is a lie?
The @implicit is there to point out that you cannot call that
method
explicitly; it gets called for you implicitly when you
construct an object
as a copy of another object.
How is this different from other types of constructors or
destructors?
I also very much dislike the syntax - it makes no sense to me at
all. I commented on the PR itself asking why it differs so much
from C++ - specifically, what's bad about the C++ way of doing
things there that we want to avoid?
Atila
