On 2 nov, 16:34, Magnus F <ma...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> If I read n2461 correctly then the following code:
>
> struct Foo {
>   explicit Foo(int) { }
>
> };
>
> int main()
> {
>   std::vector<Foo> fv;
>   fv.push_back(1);
>
> }
>
> is valid and would insert a Foo(1) instance in fv.
>
> This would be a change from 14882:2003 where it was a compile error.
> Is this an intended change or not?
>
> ---
> [ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
> [ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-...@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
> [              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
> [ FAQ:http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                     ]

The function calls an implicit conversion not an explicit conversion,
so the constructor signature does not match

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

If I read n2461 correctly then the following code:

struct Foo {
  explicit Foo(int) { }
};

int main()
{
  std::vector<Foo> fv;
  fv.push_back(1);
}

is valid and would insert a Foo(1) instance in fv.

This would be a change from 14882:2003 where it was a compile error.
Is this an intended change or not?

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]