Jonathan Wakely wrote: > WU Yongwei wrote: > > > Well, I see this in the gcc error message. Can someone here kindly > > point to me which part of the Standard specified this behaviour? I > > thought it should be in 5.3.4, but was not able to find the words > > there. > > It might be better if the error message said "non-default > initialization" since default initialization is allowed (and required).
Oops! that was meant to say "required for some types" (e.g. const-qualified types, non-POD types) Too early in the morning for me to be answering questions like this! jon
