c++ - 使用花括号初始化列表 : ambiguous or not? 调用显式构造函数

Question

考虑以下几点:

struct A {
    A(int, int) { }
};

struct B {
    B(A ) { }                   // (1)
    explicit B(int, int ) { }   // (2)
};

int main() {
    B paren({1, 2});   // (3)
    B brace{1, 2};     // (4)
}

(4) 中brace 的构造清晰明确地调用了(2)。在 clang 中，(3) 中 paren 的构造明确地调用 (1)，而在 gcc 5.2 中，它无法编译:

main.cpp: In function 'int main()':
main.cpp:11:19: error: call of overloaded 'B(<brace-enclosed initializer list>)' is ambiguous
     B paren({1, 2});
                   ^
main.cpp:6:5: note: candidate: B::B(A)
     B(A ) { }  
     ^
main.cpp:5:8: note: candidate: constexpr B::B(const B&)
 struct B {
        ^
main.cpp:5:8: note: candidate: constexpr B::B(B&&)

哪个编译器是正确的？我怀疑 clang 在这里是正确的，因为 gcc 中的歧义只能通过涉及隐式构造 B{1,2} 并将其传递给复制/移动构造函数的路径出现 - 但该构造函数被标记explicit，因此不应允许这种隐式构造。

Answer 1

据我所知，这是一个 clang 错误。

复制列表初始化有一个相当不直观的行为:它认为显式构造函数是可行的，直到重载决议完全完成，但如果选择显式构造函数，则可以拒绝重载结果。 N4567 后草案中的措辞，[over.match.list]p1

In copy-list-initialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the initialization is ill-formed. [ Note: This differs from other situations (13.3.1.3, 13.3.1.4), where only converting constructors are considered for copy-initialization. This restriction only applies if this initialization is part of the final result of overload resolution. — end note ]

---

clang HEAD 接受以下程序:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

struct String1 {
    explicit String1(const char*) { cout << "String1\n"; }
};
struct String2 {
    String2(const char*) { cout << "String2\n"; }
};

void f1(String1) { cout << "f1(String1)\n"; }
void f2(String2) { cout << "f2(String2)\n"; }
void f(String1) { cout << "f(String1)\n"; }
void f(String2) { cout << "f(String2)\n"; }

int main()
{
    //f1( {"asdf"} );
    f2( {"asdf"} );
    f( {"asdf"} );
}

除了注释掉对 f1 的调用，直接来自 Bjarne Stroustrup 的 N2532 - Uniform initialization 第 4 章。感谢 Johannes Schaub 向我展示了这篇关于 std-discussion 的论文。

同一章节包含以下解释:

The real advantage of explicit is that it renders f1("asdf") an error. A problem is that overload resolution “prefers” non-explicit constructors, so that f("asdf") calls f(String2). I consider the resolution of f("asdf") less than ideal because the writer of String2 probably didn’t mean to resolve ambiguities in favor of String2 (at least not in every case where explicit and non-explicit constructors occur like this) and the writer of String1 certainly didn’t. The rule favors “sloppy programmers” who don’t use explicit.

---

据我所知，N2640 - Initializer Lists — Alternative Mechanism and Rationale 是最后一篇包含这种重载解决方案基本原理的论文；它的继任者 N2672 被选入 C++11 草案。

摘自其“显式的意义”一章:

A first approach to make the example ill-formed is to require that all constructors (explicit and non-explicit) are considered for implicit conversions, but if an explicit constructor ends up being selected, that program is ill-formed. This rule may introduce its own surprises; for example:

struct Matrix {
    explicit Matrix(int n, int n);
};
Matrix transpose(Matrix);

struct Pixel {
    Pixel(int row, int col);
};
Pixel transpose(Pixel);

Pixel p = transpose({x, y}); // Error.

A second approach is to ignore the explicit constructors when looking for the viability of an implicit conversion, but to include them when actually selecting the converting constructor: If an explicit constructor ends up being selected, the program is ill-formed. This alternative approach allows the last (Pixel-vs-Matrix) example to work as expected (transpose(Pixel) is selected), while making the original example ("X x4 = { 10 };") ill-formed.

虽然本文建议使用第二种方法，但其措辞似乎存在缺陷 - 在我对措辞的解释中，它并没有产生本文基本原理部分概述的行为。在 N2672 中修改了措辞以使用第一种方法，但我找不到任何关于为什么要更改的讨论。

---

在 OP 中初始化变量当然会涉及更多的措辞，但考虑到 clang 和 gcc 之间的行为差​​异对于我的回答中的第一个示例程序是相同的，我认为这涵盖了要点。