[cfe-dev] copy-list-initialization and converting constructors [over.match.list]

Fernando Pelliccioni fpelliccioni at gmail.com
Fri May 18 12:09:52 PDT 2012


I have a doubt about this paragraph of [over.match.list] ...

"If the initializer list has no elements and T has a default constructor,
the first phase is omitted. In copy-listinitialization,
if an explicit constructor is chosen, the initialization is ill-formed. [
Note: This differs from
other situations (,, where only converting constructors
are considered for copy-initialization.
This restriction only applies if this initialization is part of the final
result of overload resolution. —end note ]"

According to the above, what should be the result of compiling the
following code?

// Begin code
#include <string>
#include <utility>

struct like_std_string
  template<class InputIterator>
  like_std_string(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end);      // This is
a converting constructor.

struct my_string
  template<class InputIterator>
  explicit my_string(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end);   // This is
*not* a converting constructor.

void foo( like_std_string );
void foo( std::pair<std::string, std::string> );

void bar( my_string );
void bar( std::pair<std::string, std::string> );

int main( /* int argc, char* argv[] */ )
  foo( {"k0", "v0"} ); // ambiguous in Clang (3.1) and GCC (4.7.1). OK, I
  bar( {"k0", "v0"} ); // *Not* ambiguous in Clang. Ambiguous in GCC.
Ambiguous to the Standard? I think should *not* be ambiguous.

  return 0;

// End code

GCC and Clang disagree on the interpretation of Standard (?).

Is GCC wrong? Is Clang wrong? Is the Standard confusing?

I don't understand what is the intent of this paragraph (I think it would
be good to add some examples to the paragraph.)
The final wording of "Initializer list" belongs to n2672 paper, which is
based on n2640 paper.


I think that n2640 mentions some important points about *explicit*,
*converting constructors*, and *initializer-lists*.
I believe that only converting constructors should be considered for
I don't know what were the reasons for considering all constructors,
including the explicit constructors.

(I have no access to the mailing-list to find out what happened)

Thanks and Regards,
Fernando Pelliccioni.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120518/1721a8ca/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list