Copy Constructor DIP

[Luís Marques]

On Saturday, 14 July 2018 at 10:53:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> 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.)

I also think a more general attribute is better. I think there's 
a middle ground between total analysis paralysis and no 
discussion of concept generality. I had hoped some thought would 
be given to the implications of implicit but overall I'm still 
happy, and I trust your judgement. BTW, I would still have 
brought it up even if the DIP didn't mention future directions :-)