This code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
void dump(const std::string& s) {
cout << s << endl;
}
class T {
public:
T() {
dump("default ctor");
}
T(std::nullptr_t) {
dump("ctor from nullptr_t");
}
T(const T&) {
dump("copy ctor");
}
T& operator=(const T&) {
dump("copy operator=");
return *this;
}
T& operator=(std::nullptr_t) {
dump("operator=(std::nullptr_t)");
return *this;
}
T& operator=(const std::vector<int>&) {
dump("operator=(vector)");
return *this;
}
};
int main() {
T t0;
t0 = {};
return 0;
}
outputs :
default ctor
operator=(std::nullptr_t)
why operator=
with std::nullptr_t
was selected?
We have three candidates:
operator=(T const& )
operator=(std::vector<int> const& )
operator=(std::nullptr_t )
For both #1 and #2, {}
leads to a user-defined conversion sequence .
However, for #3, {}
is a standard conversion sequence because nullptr_t
is not a class type.
Since a standard conversion sequence is better than a user-defined conversion sequence, #3 wins.
The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.