Re: [boost] [unordered] Visual C++ 2013 initializer_listoverloadfailure.

Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] Visual C++ 2013 initializer_listoverloadfailure.
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-05 06:45:36

Daniel James <daniel <at> calamity.org.uk> writes:

> 
> On 19 October 2013 22:35, Peter Dimov <lists <at> pdimov.com> wrote:
> >> I was so intrigued by string{"a","b"} (*) that I asked on c++std-core, and
> >
> > while so far there's been no authoritative answer as to whether VC++ is
> > right or not...
> >
> > Johannes Schaub again kindly points us out to 13.3.3.2/3 last bullet:
> >
> > — 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.
> >
> > which means that g++ and clang are right and VC++ is wrong in this specific
> > case.
> 
> Thanks, I'll try to work round it later this week.

Hi Daniel,

Inspecting the log seems like you tried something and then reverted
the commit. Didn't it work or did you just prefer to leave the
VC bug exposed in wait for it to be fixed by MS themselves?

Thank you,

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica Digital