Copy Constructor DIP

[docandrew]

On Saturday, 14 July 2018 at 10:53:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 7/14/18 5:03 AM, Luís Marques wrote:
>> If there is "no other meaning of @implicit" (other than the 
>> intersection of those two properties) why don't you just call 
>> it something like @copyctor?
>
> I'm totally cool with giving the attribute a more obscure name 
> such as @copyctor or anything people want really.
>
> (What follows is a personal opinion.
>
> I think it's better to choose a more general attribute name 
> with reduced initial applicability. Then application of said 
> attribute can be extended to other functions with ease. In 
> contrast, an obscure attribute name is sure to be followed by 
> more obscure attribute names. And don't get me started about 
> inventing new syntax.
>
> Regarding the hand-wringing over generality: we have an 
> exceedingly poor record of paralysis of analysis, whereby we'd 
> worry that every design decision potentially locks us out from 
> all other as-of-yet-unchosen design decisions. If history is 
> any indication, this sudden worry about vaguely-promising green 
> pastures of the future is a sign of malady. We want copy 
> construction. Conflating this with a very general schemata for 
> implicit conversion would not be a wise decision in my opinion. 
> I now deeply regret ever telling Razvan to mention future 
> possible directions. This DIP must do implicit copy 
> constructors and do it well, nothing less and nothing more.)
>
>
> Andrei

I think in this case, a more obscure name like @copyctor is more 
descriptive. I fear that at some point, a more general attribute 
like "@implicit" will turn into the next "static". To me, 
@implicit smells like one of those keywords that will grow to 
carry many different meanings in different contexts and just end 
up overly-broad.

-Jon