Is there a difference between copy initialization and direct initialization?

Question

Suppose I have this function:

void my_test()
{
    A a1 = A_factory_func();
    A a2(A_factory_func());

    double b1 = 0.5;
    double b2(0.5);

    A c1;
         


        

Answer 1

You can see its difference in explicit and implicit constructor types when you initialize an object :

Classes :

class A
{
    A(int) { }      // converting constructor
    A(int, int) { } // converting constructor (C++11)
};

class B
{
    explicit B(int) { }
    explicit B(int, int) { }
};

And in the main function :

int main()
{
    A a1 = 1;      // OK: copy-initialization selects A::A(int)
    A a2(2);       // OK: direct-initialization selects A::A(int)
    A a3 {4, 5};   // OK: direct-list-initialization selects A::A(int, int)
    A a4 = {4, 5}; // OK: copy-list-initialization selects A::A(int, int)
    A a5 = (A)1;   // OK: explicit cast performs static_cast

//  B b1 = 1;      // error: copy-initialization does not consider B::B(int)
    B b2(2);       // OK: direct-initialization selects B::B(int)
    B b3 {4, 5};   // OK: direct-list-initialization selects B::B(int, int)
//  B b4 = {4, 5}; // error: copy-list-initialization does not consider B::B(int,int)
    B b5 = (B)1;   // OK: explicit cast performs static_cast
}

By default, a constructor is as implicit so you have two way to initialize it :

A a1 = 1;        // this is copy initialization
A a2(2);         // this is direct initialization

And by defining a structure as explicit just you have one way as direct :

B b2(2);        // this is direct initialization
B b5 = (B)1;    // not problem if you either use of assign to initialize and cast it as static_cast