[Daniel James]
I don't know how to find out about "DevDiv#796414" so I don't know if it's the same issue.
That's our internal database. (I cite bug numbers so if people ask me about them later I can look them up.)
This is the example from the start of the thread which was confirmed to fail on Visual C++.
Thanks, that's the same bug. Just in case, I've reduced your example and added it to the bug: C:\Temp>type purr.cpp #include <initializer_list> struct string { string(const char *); template <typename InIt> string(InIt, InIt); }; void insert(const string&) { } void insert(std::initializer_list<string>) { } int main() { insert("a"); insert({ "b" }); insert({ "c", "d" }); } C:\Temp>cl /EHsc /nologo /W4 purr.cpp purr.cpp purr.cpp(13) : error C2668: 'insert' : ambiguous call to overloaded function purr.cpp(9): could be 'void insert(std::initializer_list<string>)' purr.cpp(8): or 'void insert(const string &)' while trying to match the argument list '(initializer-list)' purr.cpp(14) : error C2668: 'insert' : ambiguous call to overloaded function purr.cpp(9): could be 'void insert(std::initializer_list<string>)' purr.cpp(8): or 'void insert(const string &)' while trying to match the argument list '(initializer-list)' The bit of Standardese that we're not following is N3690 13.3.3.2 [over.ics.rank]/3: "List-initialization sequence L1 is a better conversion sequence than list-initialization sequence L2 if L1 converts to std::initializer_list<X> for some X and L2 does not." [Glen Fernandes]
Stephan, I seem to recall providing a slightly similar example that you added as repro to DevDiv#532674 when you renamed it "[Milan] initializer_list overloading" on 2012/11/29.
Half of that was the same bug (your complex<double> example). STL