Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. > Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the finer details of the C++ specs? The difference between initialization and assignment should be explained in every C++ text book. In the C++ standard, it is defined in section 8.5, [dcl.init]/12. In short: you program is well-formed, and the compiler is correct in accepting it; this is not a bug. Regards, Martin
