Copy constructor hell

[9il]

On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 18:01:34 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 13:19:24 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>>
>> The problems seems to be that the default constructor takes 
>> the arguments by value so a copy needs to be performed, hence 
>> the copy constructor use. This is pretty nasty. I will return 
>> with the details after I sort this out.
>
> Isn't the issue that the presence of a constructor disables the 
> use of "struct literal" syntax [1] for construction? The 
> compiler is trying to find a constructor that matches the given 
> argument, but since the only constructor is the auto-generated 
> copy constructor, it can't.
>

Yes, exactly. --Ilya