On 09/11/2015 03:11 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this is a slightly reworked (simplified) version of a patch I sent a
while ago. The issue is that we are not enforcing at all 5.3.4/2 in the
parser, thus we end up rejecting the first test below with a misleading
error message talking about list-initialization (and a wrong location),
because we diagnose it too late like 'auto foo{3, 4, 5};', and simply
accepting the second. Tested x86_64-linux.
Hmm, I think we really ought to accept
new auto { 2 }
to be consistent with all the other recent changes to treat { elt } like
(elt); this seems like a piece that was missed from DR 1467. Do you
agree, Ville?
Jason
