On 07/11/2018 12:19 PM, vit 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.
Can be explicit constructor overloaded with implicit constructor when
both have same signature?
Thanks for this. Yes we need to add a mention.
