Re: Bug#171123: g++-3.2: incorrect use of default assignment operator?

[Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>]

> > I would have expected a compile error, since the declaration
> > "Foo bar = foo;" tries to use the non-existant default constructor for
> > class Foo.
> 
> No, it doesn't. This is not a initialization followed by an assignment
> operator; there is no assignment operator at all in this statement.
> Instead, it is a copy-initialization, which invokes the copy
> constructor.

But then shouldn't it be the case that there is no automatic copy
constructor, since I've defined my own constructor?  i.e., again there
should be a compile error?

> The difference between initialization and assignment should be
> explained in every C++ text book.

So shoot me.

Ben.