I'm not clear why it is legal to assign tuple<X,Y>=pair<X,Y>
But it is illegal to assign pair<X,Y>=tuple<X,Y>
std::pair<int, double> x { 1 , 5.5};
std::tuple<int, double> y { 1 , 5.5};
int a;
double b;
std::tie(a,b) = x;
std::tie(a,b) = y;
x = y; // THIS LINE (line 12)
y = x; // but this is fine ???
Shouldn't this be symmetrical?
Using g++ 4.8.1 gives the following errors:
tp.cpp:12:4: error: no match for operator= (operand types are std::pair<int, double> and std::tuple<int, double>)
x = y;
^
tp.cpp:12:4: note: candidates are:
In file included from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/utility:70:0,
from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/tuple:38,
from tp.cpp:1:
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:158:7: note: std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(const std::pair<_T1, _T2>&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(const pair& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:158:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from std::tuple<int, double> to const std::pair<int, double>&
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:166:7: note: std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(std::pair<_T1, _T2>&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(pair&& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:166:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from std::tuple<int, double> to std::pair<int, double>&&
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:177:2: note: template<class _U1, class _U2> std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(const std::pair<_U1, _U2>&) [with _U1 = _U1; _U2 = _U2; _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(const pair<_U1, _U2>& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:177:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
tp.cpp:12:4: note: std::tuple<int, double> is not derived from const std::pair<_T1, _T2>
x = y;
^
In file included from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/utility:70:0,
from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/tuple:38,
from tp.cpp:1:
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:186:2: note: template<class _U1, class _U2> std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(std::pair<_U1, _U2>&&) [with _U1 = _U1; _U2 = _U2; _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(pair<_U1, _U2>&& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:186:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
tp.cpp:12:4: note: std::tuple<int, double> is not derived from std::pair<_T1, _T2>
x = y;
^
I think this is another case of:
No one proposed it.
Fwiw, your code works with libc++ (as an extension). libc++ implemented a "tuple-like" concept which includes tuple, pair and array, and then has member templates (on tuple and pair) that operate on "tuple-like" types. The approach hasn't been completely without problems, but it does seem promising.
Related
I've encountered a weird issue regarding the initializer list return.
#include <memory>
#include <tuple>
std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<int>, bool> function() { return {{}, false}; } //not fine
std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<int>, bool> function2() { return {nullptr, false}; } //fine
auto main() -> int{}
Code won't compile with g++ (versions 11+, it works fine in g++-10 and clang-14).
Build fails with:
./main.cpp:4:70: error: conversion from ‘<brace-enclosed initializer list>’ to ‘std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<int>, bool>’ is ambiguous
4 | std::tuple<std::shared_ptr<int>, bool> function() { return {{}, false}; }
| ^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/12/bits/unique_ptr.h:36,
from /usr/include/c++/12/memory:76,
from ./main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/12/tuple:1155:9: note: candidate: ‘std::tuple<_T1, _T2>::tuple(std::allocator_arg_t, const _Alloc&) [with _Alloc = bool; typename std::enable_if<std::_TupleConstraints<std::is_object<_Alloc>::value, _T1, _T2>::__is_implicitly_default_constructible(), bool>::type <anonymous> = true; _T1 = std::sha
red_ptr<int>; _T2 = bool]’
1155 | tuple(allocator_arg_t __tag, const _Alloc& __a)
| ^~~~~
/usr/include/c++/12/tuple:1063:9: note: candidate: ‘constexpr std::tuple<_T1, _T2>::tuple(const _T1&, const _T2&) [with bool _Dummy = true; typename std::enable_if<std::_TupleConstraints<_Dummy, _T1, _T2>::__is_implicitly_constructible<const _T1&, const _T2&>(), bool>::type <anonymous> = true; _T1 = std::shared_p
tr<int>; _T2 = bool]’
1063 | tuple(const _T1& __a1, const _T2& __a2)
| ^~~~~
Any ideas why is that happening?
I'm not clear why it is legal to assign tuple<X,Y>=pair<X,Y>
But it is illegal to assign pair<X,Y>=tuple<X,Y>
std::pair<int, double> x { 1 , 5.5};
std::tuple<int, double> y { 1 , 5.5};
int a;
double b;
std::tie(a,b) = x;
std::tie(a,b) = y;
x = y; // THIS LINE (line 12)
y = x; // but this is fine ???
Shouldn't this be symmetrical?
Using g++ 4.8.1 gives the following errors:
tp.cpp:12:4: error: no match for operator= (operand types are std::pair<int, double> and std::tuple<int, double>)
x = y;
^
tp.cpp:12:4: note: candidates are:
In file included from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/utility:70:0,
from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/tuple:38,
from tp.cpp:1:
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:158:7: note: std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(const std::pair<_T1, _T2>&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(const pair& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:158:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from std::tuple<int, double> to const std::pair<int, double>&
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:166:7: note: std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(std::pair<_T1, _T2>&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(pair&& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:166:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from std::tuple<int, double> to std::pair<int, double>&&
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:177:2: note: template<class _U1, class _U2> std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(const std::pair<_U1, _U2>&) [with _U1 = _U1; _U2 = _U2; _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(const pair<_U1, _U2>& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:177:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
tp.cpp:12:4: note: std::tuple<int, double> is not derived from const std::pair<_T1, _T2>
x = y;
^
In file included from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/utility:70:0,
from /opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/tuple:38,
from tp.cpp:1:
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:186:2: note: template<class _U1, class _U2> std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(std::pair<_U1, _U2>&&) [with _U1 = _U1; _U2 = _U2; _T1 = int; _T2 = double]
operator=(pair<_U1, _U2>&& __p)
^
/opt/gcc-4.8.1/include/c++/4.8.1/bits/stl_pair.h:186:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
tp.cpp:12:4: note: std::tuple<int, double> is not derived from std::pair<_T1, _T2>
x = y;
^
I think this is another case of:
No one proposed it.
Fwiw, your code works with libc++ (as an extension). libc++ implemented a "tuple-like" concept which includes tuple, pair and array, and then has member templates (on tuple and pair) that operate on "tuple-like" types. The approach hasn't been completely without problems, but it does seem promising.
I want something that's like unique_ptr, but guaranteed (within reason) to be non-null. I wrote this class that contains a unique_ptr, and I wrote this move constructor that I'd hoped would allow me to move-construct one of my pointers from another, as long as the underlying unique_ptr could be similarly move-constructed. So, I first try it with something simple; move-constructing a pointer-to-int from a pointer-to-int.
#include <memory>
#include <utility>
#include <cassert>
template<
typename T
>
class Nonup
{
private:
std::unique_ptr<T> m_ptr;
public:
explicit Nonup( T* p )
: m_ptr( p )
{ assert( p ); }
Nonup( const Nonup& ) = delete;
Nonup& operator=( const Nonup& ) = delete;
template<typename U>
Nonup( Nonup<U>&& old )
:
m_ptr( std::move( old ) )
{}
Nonup& operator=( Nonup&& rhs ) = default;
decltype( *m_ptr ) operator*() const { return *m_ptr; }
};
int main()
{
Nonup<int> first( new int( 42 ) );
Nonup<int> second( std::move( first ) );
return 0;
}
Why does g++ 4.7.0 give errors on the move-construction of the variable second? The output of "g++ -std=c++11 main.cpp" follows.
main.cpp: In instantiation of ‘Nonup<T>::Nonup(Nonup<U>&&) [with U = int; T = int]’:
main.cpp:40:43: required from here
main.cpp:27:37: error: no matching function for call to ‘std::unique_ptr<int, std::default_delete<int> >::unique_ptr(std::remove_reference<Nonup<int>&>::type)’
main.cpp:27:37: note: candidates are:
In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/memory:86:0,
from main.cpp:1:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:164:2: note: template<class _Up, class> std::unique_ptr::unique_ptr(std::auto_ptr<_Up>&&)
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:164:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
main.cpp:27:37: note: ‘std::remove_reference<Nonup<int>&>::type {aka Nonup<int>}’ is not derived from ‘std::auto_ptr<_Up>’
In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/memory:86:0,
from main.cpp:1:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:155:2: note: template<class _Up, class _Ep, class> std::unique_ptr::unique_ptr(std::unique_ptr<_Up, _Ep>&&)
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:155:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
main.cpp:27:37: note: ‘std::remove_reference<Nonup<int>&>::type {aka Nonup<int>}’ is not derived from ‘std::unique_ptr<_Up, _Ep>’
In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/memory:86:0,
from main.cpp:1:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:142:7: note: std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr(std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>&&) [with _Tp = int; _Dp = std::default_delete<int>]
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:142:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘std::remove_reference<Nonup<int>&>::type {aka Nonup<int>}’ to ‘std::unique_ptr<int, std::default_delete<int> >&&’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:136:17: note: constexpr std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr(std::nullptr_t) [with _Tp = int; _Dp = std::default_delete<int>; std::nullptr_t = std::nullptr_t]
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:136:17: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘std::remove_reference<Nonup<int>&>::type {aka Nonup<int>}’ to ‘std::nullptr_t’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:130:7: note: std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr(std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::pointer, typename std::remove_reference<_To>::type&&) [with _Tp = int; _Dp = std::default_delete<int>; std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::pointer = int*; typename std::remove_reference<_To>::type = std::default_delete<int>]
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:130:7: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:125:7: note: std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr(std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::pointer, typename std::conditional<std::is_reference<_Dp>::value, _Dp, const _Dp&>::type) [with _Tp = int; _Dp = std::default_delete<int>; std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::pointer = int*; typename std::conditional<std::is_reference<_Dp>::value, _Dp, const _Dp&>::type = const std::default_delete<int>&]
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:125:7: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:120:7: note: std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr(std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::pointer) [with _Tp = int; _Dp = std::default_delete<int>; std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::pointer = int*]
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:120:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘std::remove_reference<Nonup<int>&>::type {aka Nonup<int>}’ to ‘std::unique_ptr<int, std::default_delete<int> >::pointer {aka int*}’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:114:17: note: constexpr std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr() [with _Tp = int; _Dp = std::default_delete<int>]
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:114:17: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
Thanks!
You're trying to initialise m_ptr from the other Nonup, rather than its m_ptr. The move constructor's initialiser should be:
m_ptr( std::move( old.m_ptr ) )
^^^^^^
I have the following unordered_map, that maps a pointer to an object of type Item with a key of type int.
typedef std::unordered_map<int, Item*> ItemList;
ItemList Items;
However, in my addItem method, I receive a strange error at compilation.
void ItemManager::addItem(Item *it) {
int i = it->getItemID();
Items.insert(ItemList::value_type(i, *it));
}
Yields:
item_manager.cc: In member function ‘void ItemManager::addItem(Item*)’:
item_manager.cc:31:51: error: no matching function for call to ‘std::pair<const int, Item*>::pair(int&, Item&)’
item_manager.cc:31:51: note: candidates are:
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:140:2: note: template<class ... _Args1, class ... _Args2> std::pair::pair(std::piecewise_construct_t, std::tuple<_Args1 ...>, std::tuple<_Args2 ...>)
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:135:2: note: template<class _U1, class _U2> std::pair::pair(std::pair<_U1, _U2>&&)
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:131:2: note: template<class _U1, class _U2, class> std::pair::pair(_U1&&, _U2&&)
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:125:2: note: template<class _U2, class> std::pair::pair(const _T1&, _U2&&)
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:120:2: note: template<class _U1, class> std::pair::pair(_U1&&, const _T2&)
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:112:17: note: constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(const std::pair<_T1, _T2>&) [with _T1 = const int, _T2 = Process*, std::pair<_T1, _T2> = std::pair<const int, Process*>]
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:112:17: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:108:21: note: template<class _U1, class _U2> constexpr std::pair::pair(const std::pair<_U1, _U2>&)
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:103:26: note: constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(const _T1&, const _T2&) [with _T1 = const int, _T2 = Process*]
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:103:26: note: no known conversion for argument 2 from ‘Process’ to ‘Process* const&’
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:99:26: note: constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair() [with _T1 = const int, _T2 = Process*]
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:99:26: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 2 provided
Any ideas what could be causing these errors? I'm new to C++, so I have been working off of examples of unordered_maps I've found around the web. Any help is greatly appreciated. Please and thank you!
The values in your map are of type Item*, so you need to insert Item*, not Item. This line
Items.insert(ItemList::value_type(i, *it));
should be
Items.insert(ItemList::value_type(i, it));
You don't need to dereference the pointer:
void ItemManager::addItem(Item *it) {
int i = it->getItemID();
Items.insert(ItemList::value_type(i, it));
}
The following code compiles on gcc 4.6 but not 4.7. Is it 4.7's problem or 4.6's problem? Compiled with -std=gnu++0x.
#include <utility>
using namespace std;
struct Z {
};
struct X {
operator Z*() const { return nullptr; }
};
struct Y {
Y(Z*) {}
};
int main() {
pair<int, Y> p(make_pair(0, X()));
}
Error messages:
[hidden]$ g++-mp-4.6 -std=gnu++0x e.cpp
[hidden]$ g++-mp-4.7 -std=gnu++0x e.cpp
e.cpp: In function 'int main()':
e.cpp:17:37: error: no matching function for call to 'std::pair<int, Y>::pair(std::pair<int, X>)'
e.cpp:17:37: note: candidates are:
In file included from /opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/utility:72:0,
from e.cpp:1:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:204:9: note: template<class ... _Args1, long unsigned int ..._Indexes1, class ... _Args2, long unsigned int ..._Indexes2> std::pair::pair(std::tuple<_Args1 ...>&, std::tuple<_Args2 ...>&, std::_Index_tuple<_Indexes1 ...>, std::_Index_tuple<_Indexes2 ...>)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:204:9: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
e.cpp:17:37: note: 'std::pair<int, X>' is not derived from 'std::tuple<_Args1 ...>'
In file included from /opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/utility:72:0,
from e.cpp:1:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:153:9: note: template<class ... _Args1, class ... _Args2> std::pair::pair(std::piecewise_construct_t, std::tuple<_Args1 ...>, std::tuple<_Args2 ...>)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:153:9: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
e.cpp:17:37: note: cannot convert 'std::make_pair(_T1&&, _T2&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = X; typename std::__decay_and_strip<_T2>::__type = X; typename std::__decay_and_strip<_T1>::__type = int]((* & X()))' (type 'std::pair<int, X>') to type 'std::piecewise_construct_t'
In file included from /opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/utility:72:0,
from e.cpp:1:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:148:12: note: template<class _U1, class _U2, class> constexpr std::pair::pair(std::pair<_U1, _U2>&&)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:148:12: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:145:38: error: no type named 'type' in 'struct std::enable_if<false, void>'
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:142:12: note: template<class _U1, class _U2, class> constexpr std::pair::pair(_U1&&, _U2&&)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:142:12: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
e.cpp:17:37: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
In file included from /opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/utility:72:0,
from e.cpp:1:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:136:12: note: template<class _U2, class> constexpr std::pair::pair(const _T1&, _U2&&)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:136:12: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
e.cpp:17:37: note: cannot convert 'std::make_pair(_T1&&, _T2&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = X; typename std::__decay_and_strip<_T2>::__type = X; typename std::__decay_and_strip<_T1>::__type = int]((* & X()))' (type 'std::pair<int, X>') to type 'const int&'
In file included from /opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/utility:72:0,
from e.cpp:1:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:131:12: note: template<class _U1, class> constexpr std::pair::pair(_U1&&, const _T2&)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:131:12: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
e.cpp:17:37: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
In file included from /opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/utility:72:0,
from e.cpp:1:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:122:7: note: std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(std::pair<_T1, _T2>&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = Y; std::pair<_T1, _T2> = std::pair<int, Y>]
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:122:7: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from 'std::pair<int, X>' to 'std::pair<int, Y>&&'
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:119:17: note: constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(const std::pair<_T1, _T2>&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = Y; std::pair<_T1, _T2> = std::pair<int, Y>]
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:119:17: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from 'std::pair<int, X>' to 'const std::pair<int, Y>&'
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:116:12: note: template<class _U1, class _U2, class> constexpr std::pair::pair(const std::pair<_U1, _U2>&)
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:116:12: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:113:38: error: no type named 'type' in 'struct std::enable_if<false, void>'
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:104:26: note: constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(const _T1&, const _T2&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = Y]
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:104:26: note: candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:100:26: note: constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair() [with _T1 = int; _T2 = Y]
/opt/local/include/gcc47/c++/bits/stl_pair.h:100:26: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
That shouldn't compile.
The initialisation of p.second requires an implicit conversion from X to Y. An implicit conversion can only involve at most one user-defined conversion The required conversion would require two; X to Z* via the conversion operator, and Z* to Y via the conversion constructor.
Initialisation of pair elements from another pair is only allowed via implicit conversions. C++11 says:
20.3.2/12 This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless const U& is implicitly convertible to first_type and const V& is implicitly convertible to second_type.
and C++98 said:
20.2.2/4 Initializes members from the corresponding members of the argument, performing implicit conversions as needed.
Presumably, the older version had a bug which allowed this conversion to be considered, and that bug has been fixed in the more recent version.