https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86852
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed| |2018-08-04
Summary|map and unordered_map wrong |[DR 3025] map and
|deduction guides for |unordered_map wrong
|inilializer_list |deduction guides for
| |inilializer_list
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Michael Veksler from comment #3)
> As you mention, there is https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3025 ,
> but even if this proposal is accepted things are still too brittle in
> libstd++:
>
> std::unordered_map m{{1,2}, {3,4}} does not work, and forcing
> std::unordered_map m{std::pair{1,2}, {3,4}} is counterintuitive.
Neither of these works in clang despite following the standard, which is why
there's an open issue (reported by a libstdc++ developer). The current guides
in the standard aren't very useful.
> Worse:
> std::unordered_map<int,int> m(
> std::initializer_list<std::pair<int, int>>{
> {1, 2}, {2, 3}});
> does not work, which means that:
> std::unordered_map m(
> std::initializer_list<std::pair<int, int>>{
> {1, 2}, {2, 3}});
> does not work either.
Good! Neither of those should ever be written, and should never pass a code
review. Just say std::unordered_map<int, int>.
I'm suspending this until issue 3025 is resolved, because failing to follow a
defective standard is not a bug.
