On 07/11/2018 11:11 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
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?
The main difference is that the compiler may insert calls to it implicitly.
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?
C++ is at the other end of the spectrum - constructors are too implicit,
so the "explicit" keyword has been introduced with the advice to use it
in the vast majority of cases. If C++ could do it again, it would make
everything explicit and add an "implicit" keyword.
