Hi David,

I have experience with writing proposals about aggregate initialisation and getting them into the standard. So I can help you put this together as a proper proposal. I think your proposed change would be a good fix.

Cheers,
Timur

On 27 Mar 2022, at 07:08, David Ledger via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:



Haven't had any further followup with this, how shall I proceed?

On 16/02/2022 3:37 am, Gašper Ažman wrote:
Anyone volunteer to lead the new author towards getting a paper number and submit the paper to the system? I'm busy.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:50 PM Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 17:40, David Ledger via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
> Gday all!
>
> In generic contexts it can be desirable to inherit the constructors of a base class. Currently, this leads to broken code when the base class is an aggregate, as it is no longer possible to initialize the aggregate base's members.
>
>
> An example:
>
> ---
> struct A { A(int a, int b, int c){} };
>
> struct B { int a, b, c; };
>
> template <typename T>
> struct N : T { using T::T; };
>
> N<A> a{1, 2, 3};                // current: ok, inherits A::A
>
> N<B> b{1, 2, 3};                // current: error, no constructor to inherit(and `N<B>` is now, not an aggregate)
>                                 // proposed: ok, elides the braces, and aggregate constructs
>
> N<B> c{.a = 1, .b = 2, .c = 3}; // current: error, designated initializers cannot be used with a non-aggregate type 'Bar'
>                                 // proposed: ok, Foo's a, b, and c are initialized via the designated initalizers.
> ---
>
> Proposal is here:
> ---
> https://gitlab.com/Sepps/inheriting-aggregate-initialization

So, the problem is that a using-declaration that inherits constructors
renders a type a non-aggregate even if it inherits
an aggregate?

At the first glance, "Ignore using T::T for aggregates completely."
seems like a good idea to me. And in general, I agree that this would
be a good fix to make, not 100% of which approach is the best. The
"ignore" option seems like it does all the right things, afaics.
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals