Implicitly defined constructor deleted due to variant member, N3690/N4140 vs N4659/N4727
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My story starts off the same as this person's here: Unions in C++11: default constructor seems to be deleted The resolution here (now about three years old) is a bit unsatisfactory, because the "Digging into the standard" that the author did ended up with concluding that the behavior was as described in the standard, but unfortunately the quote is from a Note , and those are supposed to be non-normative (I've been told). Anyways, there's a link to an old bug report on gcc that is claimed to be fixed, and they also claim that the code compiles in clang, however I'm having issues (with the same and similar code). The matter boils down to a whether or not a union-like class with a default initialized variant member should compile whether or not there is another variant member ...