DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review

[Walter Bright]

On 2/25/2019 7:17 PM, Manu wrote:
> I'm literally astonished that it's been agreed it's fine that
> a copy constructor can mutate the source... and I can't help but draw
> contrast to the exact same sorts of arguments that people were using
> to break my DIP,

Mutating the lvalue ref was not the issue, as I recall. It was conversion of the 
value to a temporary of a different type, then modifying the temporary, not the 
original.

https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/DIP_1016--ref_T_accepts_r-values--Formal_Assessment_54145.html#N54345

It is not analogous to the mutable cpctor argument case, because there is no 
hidden conversion to a temporary.