Question

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

struct Y;

struct X
{
    X(const Y&) { cout << "converting constructor" << endl; }
};

struct Y
{
    operator X() { cout << "conversion function" << endl; }
};

void f(X x) {}

int main()
{
    Y y;
    f(y);
}

In the above the conversion function is given priority to the converting constructor by my compiler (gcc 4.6.1), however in the standard it states that:

User-defined conversions are applied only where they are unambiguous

It would seem that there is ambiguity in this case. Can anyone explain the contradiction?

I would have expected the above to not compile. I’m also pretty sure years ago that Scott Meyers wrote about this specific example and said that it wouldn’t compile. What am I missing?

Answer 1

Because X constructor wants a const argument, it prefers the operator. If you remove the const in the X constructor then compiler complains about ambiguity. If there are more than one functions with reference parameters, the one with the most relaxed const qualification is preferred.

A good answer here