On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 00:45, RazvanN via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.
That's my point; so this is a compile error then: S b = S(a); // <- explicit construction of copy? ie, explicit call to stated `@implicit` function
