On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 09:20, vit via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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?
If they've got the same signature, they should do the same thing... what's the overload for?
