On 7/12/18 6:34 PM, Manu wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 06:50, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
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.
You mean like ~this(), and op[Anything](), and front() and popFront()
and empty()?
I don't think we need this attribute.
I mentioned this, and patiently will mention it again: we need to
introduce the attribute so as to avoid silently changing the semantics
of existing code.
