Copy Constructor DIP

[Atila Neves]

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 07:40:32 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>> But there's a super explicit `@implicit` thing written right 
>> there... so should we expect that an *explicit* call to the 
>> copy constructor is not allowed? Or maybe it is allowed and 
>> `@implicit` is a lie?
>
> The @implicit is there to point out that you cannot call that 
> method
> explicitly; it gets called for you implicitly when you 
> construct an object
> as a copy of another object.

How is this different from other types of constructors or 
destructors?

I also very much dislike the syntax - it makes no sense to me at 
all. I commented on the PR itself asking why it differs so much 
from C++ - specifically, what's bad about the C++ way of doing 
things there that we want to avoid?

Atila