There has already been a similar question on SO, but I want to stress another aspect of braced-init-lists. Consider the following:
auto x = {1}; //(1)
This is ill-formed (8.5.4/2) unless the header <initializer_list>
is included. But why? The standard says, that the template std::initializer_list
is not predefined. Does this mean, that declaration (1) introduces a new type? In all other situations, where auto
may be used such as
auto y = expr;
where expr
is an expression, the type auto deduces already exists. On the other hand, from a logical point of view, the compiler must assign an implicite type to the construct {1}
, for which std::initializer_list
is then another name. But in declaration (1) we do not want to name this type. So why must this header be included. There is a similar situation with nullptr
. Its type implicitely exists, but to name it explicitely you have to include <cstddef>
.
That's not the same. The rules for
std::nullptr_t
andstd::initializer_list
are actually different.std::nullptr_t
is just a typedef for a built-in type. Its definition isThe type exists whether you include the header or not.
std::initializer_list
is a class template, not a predefined type. It really doesn't exist unless you include the header that defines it. In particular, the initializer list{ 1 }
does not have typestd::initializer_list<int>
; it has no type at all, because it is not an expression. (Initializer lists are special syntactic constructs and cannot appear everywhere an expression can.)std::initializer_list
is just slightly special. For one, there are special rules for how to initialize astd::initializer_list
from the initializer list syntax (allocate an array and have the object refer to it). However, this requiresstd::initializer_list
to be defined in the first place.The second special case is
auto
type deduction. There's a special rule here too. But again, this doesn't mean that the compiler will automatically define the type; it just means that it will recognize it.