Copy Constructor DIP

[Meta]

On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 02:32:59 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Seriously, if I was making this proposal to you, and you were 
> in my
> position... there is no way in hell that you'd allow any of us 
> to slip
> something so substantial by like that with the wave of a hand.
> This DIP depends on @implicit. How can you argue otherwise?

Nothing is being slipped by as far as I'm concerned. @implicit is 
solely introduced in the DIP as a marker for the copy 
constructor, and it doesn't seem like it's intended for anything 
further than avoiding breaking code. It feels to me like you're 
making a mountain out of an ant hill.

Still, regardless of what the intention was, @implicit was a poor 
choice of words for exactly this reason.

The DIP itself seems solid. Makes me a little nervous to be 
introducing copy constructors, but if it's really that untenable 
to typecheck qualified postblits, then I'm all for it. One step 
closer to eliminating Qualified Hell when wrapping structs in 
other structs.