Copy Constructor DIP

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 07/11/2018 12:19 PM, vit 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?

Thanks for this. Yes we need to add a mention.