Copy Constructor DIP

[vit]

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.

Can be explicit constructor overloaded with implicit constructor 
when both have same signature?