On 07/02/2011 01:55 AM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:07:04 +0200, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 07/02/2011 12:44 AM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
(I do believe, however, that std::initializer_list<T> is a misfeature. I personally think the { a, b, c } should have been mapped onto a constructor call taking a, b, and c--which may or may not use variadic templates).
Both are possible in C++0x. That's how you initialize tuples.
The { a, b, c } syntax does not map onto constructors.
Yes it does. {} has been unified to be the same as constructors in C++0x. You can do tuple<int, double> t {1, 2.}; but unforunately you cannot do tuple<int, double> t = {1, 2.}; because tuple::tuple(int&&, double&&) is explicit (arguably a bug, it should only be explicit in the unary case). Both cases work with pair<int, double> (which is very important when you want to initialize maps).
It maps onto std::initializer_list<T> for some particular (and unique) T.
There are special overloading resolution rules for initializer_list that allows the two. But then I've already said this. If you don't want to believe me, I invite you to take a look at the working draft for C++0x standard at section 8.5.4.