https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105672
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Barry Revzin from comment #2) > And drop the "non-scalar type" part - does it add anything meaningful to the > diagnostic? Good point. I assume the intention of that wording is to say "I tried to find constructors and conversion operators to make this work, but there aren't any" but that's a very compiler-centric error. The user doesn't care where we looked, only that it didn't compile. They can figure out (or probably already know) whether that type is a class, and whether that means no constructor exists for the conversion.
