the example I added to the ticket (#3472) would also be ambiguous on other compilers, when value_initialized(T const&) would be added:
class my_integer { value_initialized<int> m_data; public: operator value_initialized<int>() const; operator int() const; };
int main() { my_integer my; value_initialized<int> val(my); }
Steven Watanabe wrote:
Um. Why do you /want/ to do this?
I don't know, it's just an example. my_integer::operator value_initialized<int>() might do some extra checks that my_integer::operator int() does not. Or whatever. You know, boost::value_initialized<T> has been around for very long already, so I think it's possible that adding a value_initialized(T const&) constructor might break some legacy user code. But please let me know if you have a better example! Kind regards, Niels -- Niels Dekker http://www.xs4all.nl/~nd/dekkerware Scientific programmer at LKEB, Leiden University Medical Center