On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 at 13:28, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > Iain, Nina, is there a reason we need the new problematic constructor, > or can we just do this instead? If we do need the constructor, does it > need to take const void* or could it use const __impl* instead?
No, there is no such reason. It was deemed slightly cleaner to invoke a private constructor from a friend than mucking with a data member directly from a friend, but we didn't realize/remember when ruminating on that that it messes with overload resolution despite being private.
