Copy Constructor DIP and implementation

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, September 22, 2018 6:13:25 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 17:43:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> > If that where the case, then why not make it an actual keyword?
> > A frequent complaint regarding D is that there are too many
> > attributes, this will undoubtedly adding more to it.
>
> When I (and surely others like me) complain that there are too
> many attributes, the complaint has nothing to do with the @
> character. I consider "nothrow" and "pure" to be part of the
> problem and they lack @.

Yeah, the problem has to do with how much you have to mark up your code.
Whether you have @foo @bar @baz or foo bar baz is pretty irrelevant. And
keywords eat up identifiers, so they're actually worse.

In addition, most of the complaints about @implicit have to do with the fact
that it doesn't even add anything. It's annoying that we have @nogc, @safe,
pure, etc. but at least each of those adds something. @implicit is just
there because of the fear of breaking a theoretical piece of code that's
going to be extremely rare if it exists at all and in most cases would
continue to work just fine even if it did exist.

- Jonathan M Davis