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?


Reply via email to