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
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?