I'd be careful about adding a static_cast, since it changes exactly what's being tested. Part of the behavior of a class is the way it handles implicit conversions. Even conversions that generate warnings sometimes need to be tested.
You are right, as ever. But in this case, is it my ignorance of C++ or is there no way of specifying an (unsigned) short,
There is no portable method of specifying an unsigned short literal, except possible via the C99 macro UINT16_C in stdint.h.
The test wanted to use v6 = 58US;
Or unsigned short int i = 58U; v6 = i; ?
Or would just v6 = 58U avoid the warning?
In the test, I suspect that v6 = static_cast< t_var6 >(58); was what was really wanted (or some way of getting at the first template type from the variant that is beyond my skills).
Delving into this a bit deeper, I believe the warning is correct, and cannot / should not be fixed, to recap we have: d:\data\boost\trunk\boost/variant/variant.hpp(1297) : warning C4244: 'argument' : conversion from 'const int' to 'const short', possible loss of data d:\data\boost\trunk\boost/variant/variant.hpp(1366) : see reference to function template instantiation 'void boost::variant<T0_,T1>::convert_construct<const T>(T &,int,boost::mpl::false_)' being compiled with [ T0_=short, T1=const char *, T=int ] d:\data\boost\trunk\boost/variant/variant.hpp(1609) : see reference to function template instantiation 'boost::variant<T0_,T1>::variant<int>(const T &)' being compiled with [ T0_=short, T1=const char *, T=int ] d:\data\boost\trunk\boost/variant/variant.hpp(1619) : see reference to function template instantiation 'void boost::variant<T0_,T1>::assign<T>(const T &)' being compiled with [ T0_=short, T1=const char *, T=int ] test1.cpp(66) : see reference to function template instantiation 'boost::variant<T0_,T1> &boost::variant<T0_,T1>::operator =<int>(const T &)' being compiled with [ T0_=short, T1=const char *, T=int ] The code calls Variant's converting-assignment operator, and Boost.Variant internally decides what type to convert the argument to and makes the assignment. In this case the user *should* see a warning to be alerted to the fact that the internal conversion results in loss of precision (likewise they would see an error in this location if there is no suitable conversion). I notice that the code in question has a comment to this effect: // NOTE TO USER : // Compile error here indicates one of the source variant's types // cannot be unambiguously converted to the destination variant's // types (or that no conversion exists). But perhaps we should add a similar note about compiler warnings? John.