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?

Reply via email to