CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++arraysstd
rzhurov
rzhurov

Reputation: 193

Initializer syntax error does not happen anymore with std::array

According to the question std::array c++11 initializer syntax error It is not allowed to assign braced list to std::array in such way:

std::array<int, 10> a = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
a = {0}; // error: cannot assign to an array from a braced list

But actually I can not reproduce this error anymore. My GCC version is 4.8.2. Here is the code:

#include <array>

int main() {

   std::array<int, 10> a;

    a = {1};

    return 0;
}

It compiles and executes without any error.

So, the question is, am I doing something wrong here? Or was there any changes that led to such behavior change?

Upvotes: 7

Views: 245

Answers (1)

Lingxi
Lingxi

Reputation: 14967

The expression a = {1}; corresponds to case (10) of copy-list-initialization (see here). So, it should be correct according to the standard.

The problem you encountered may have something to do with the following change from C++11 to C++14: In C++11, when performing aggregate initialization, braces around nested initializer lists may only be elided if the syntax ... = {...} is used, but not ...{...}. In C++14, the latter is also allowed. See here for details. Now, assume C++11, should a = {1}; be correct or not? I think the answer depends on how you interpret the standard. Clearly, {1} is used to initialize the second operand of operator=. Following are two possible explanations that, respectively, give a positive answer and a negative one.

Explanation for a positive answer: The syntax ... = {...} performs copy-list-init while ...{...} performs direct-list-init. So, what the standard says is that brace elision is allowed in copy-list-init but not direct-list-init. a = {1}; performs copy-list-init. So the elision is OK.

Explanation for a negative answer: Just give the standard a literal interpretation. Elision is OK with the appearance of an equal sign, and not otherwise. In a = {1};, initialization of the operand of operator= is implicit without an equal sign. So, it is not OK. The statement here seems to suggest this verbatim explanation.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions