Hi again,

On 09/02/2014 04:28 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 10:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Let's see if I can tease the case out...
>
> I think you need to leave that hunk alone, and instead fix the new 
> testcase by treating = {} more like {}, just as we already don't 
> require a copy constructor call for copy-list-initialization.
By the way, now I really understand the DR (the wording in the 
resolution clarifies what we are *already* doing correctly!).

Anyway, what about the below? Certainly works for the tests which we 
have got.

Thanks,
Paolo.

////////////////////