DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Formal Review

[Manu]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:30 PM Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2019 7:17 PM, Manu wrote:
> > break my DIP
>
> The review process is not about "why not add this feature" , but "why should we
> have this feature".
>
> Additionally, it is most assuredly about finding flaws in it. Isn't it best to
> find out the flaws before going further with it than finding them in the field?
>
> As I mentioned before, it's supposed to be brutal. Any
> testing/certification/review process is about trying to break it.
>
> It has (hopefully) nothing to do with how hard (or little) you worked on it, nor
> the cut of your jib, nor acceptance (or not) of mediocrity/merit in other DIPs.

I'm talking about this DIP. Allowing a mutable copy argument feels super weird.
The reasons are clear, but that doesn't make it feel less weird.
I feel like the problem is with const, not with this DIP, but I'm not
about to convince anybody, so we're all good here.