Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

[Meta]

On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 01:08:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> @implicit is just there because of the fear of breaking a 
> theoretical piece of code that's going to be extremely rare if 
> it exists at all and in most cases would continue to work just 
> fine even if it did exist.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I somewhat agree with this argument, but overall I hate this 
attitude of "we should just make the change because it *probably* 
won't break any code", and then bonus points for "code that does 
this is wrong anyway so we shouldn't care if we break it". I've 
already been burned by that a couple times using D, and I imagine 
heavy corporate users with large code bases have many more 
problems with this.