Date: 2014-11-15.00:00:00

[Moved to DR at the November, 2014 meeting.]

Date: 2014-06-15.00:00:00

Proposed resolution (June, 2014):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 1467.

Date: 2013-04-15.00:00:00

Notes from the April, 2013 meeting:

CWG determined that the latter bullet should apply only if the first one does not.

Date: 2012-11-21.00:00:00

The interpretation of the following example is unclear in the current wording:

   void f(long);
   void f(initializer_list<int>);
   int main() { f({1L});

The problem is that a list-initialization sequence can also be a standard conversion sequence, depending on the types of the elements and the type of the parameter, so more than one bullet in the list in 12.2.4.3 [over.ics.rank] paragraph 3 applies:

Two implicit conversion sequences of the same form are indistinguishable conversion sequences unless one of the following rules applies:

• Standard conversion sequence S1 is a better conversion sequence than standard conversion sequence S2 if

• ...

• the rank of S1 is better than the rank of S2 , or S1 and S2 have the same rank and are distinguishable by the rules in the paragraph below, or, if not that,

• ...

• ...

• 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.

These bullets give opposite results for the example above, and there is implementation variance in which is selected.