This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 110b. See for the official list.


899. Explicit conversion functions in direct class initialization

Section:  [over.match.copy]     Status: CD2     Submitter: Jason Merrill     Date: 13 May, 2009

[Voted into WP at March, 2010 meeting.]

Consider the following example:

    struct C { };

    struct A {
       explicit operator int() const;
       explicit operator C() const;

    struct B {
       int i;
       B(const A& a): i(a) { }

    int main() {
       A a;
       int i = a;
       int j(a);
       C c = a;
       C c2(a);

It's clear that the B constructor and the declaration of j are well-formed and the declarations of i and c are ill-formed. But what about the declaration of c2? This is supposed to work, but it doesn't under the current wording.

C c2(a) is direct-initialization of a class, so constructors are considered. The only possible candidate is the default copy constructor. So we look for a conversion from A to const C&. There is a conversion operator to C, but it is explicit and we are now performing copy-initialization of a reference temporary, so it is not a candidate, and the declaration of c2 is ill-formed.

Proposed resolution (October, 2009):

Change [over.match.copy] paragraph 1 second bullet as follows: