Nested aggregate initialization of std::array [duplicate]

The braces in aggregate initialisation are largely optional, so you can write:

S c_arr[] = {1, 2, 3, 4};  // OKstd::array<S, 2> std_arr = {1, 2, 3, 4};  // OK

If you do add braces, though, then the braces are taken to apply to the next sub-object. Unfortunately, when you start nesting, this leads to silly code being valid, and sensible code like yours being invalid.

std::array<S, 2> std_arr = {{1, 2, 3, 4}};  // OKstd::array<S, 2> std_arr = {1, 2, {3, 4}};  // OKstd::array<S, 2> std_arr = {1, {2}, {3, 4}};  // OK

These are all okay. {1, 2, 3, 4} is a valid initialiser for the S[2] member of std_arr. {2} is okay because it is an attempt to initialise an int, and {2} is a valid initialiser for that. {3, 4} is taken as an initialiser for S, and it's also valid for that.

std::array<S, 2> std_arr = {{1, 2}, {3, 4}};  // error

This is not okay because {1, 2} is taken as a valid initialiser for the S[2] member. The remaining int sub-objects are initialised to zero.

You then have {3, 4}, but there are no more members to initialise.

As pointed out in the comments,

std::array<S, 2> std_arr = {{{1, 2}, {3, 4}}};

also works. The nested {{1, 2}, {3, 4}} is an initialiser for the S[2] member. The {1, 2} is an initialiser for the first S element. The {3, 4} is an initialiser for the second S element.

_{I'm assuming here that std::array<S, 2> contains an array member of type S[2], which it does on current implementations, and which I believe is likely to become guaranteed, but which has been covered on SO before and is not currently guaranteed.}

Since the question is tagged C++14, I'll be quoting N4140. In [array] it says that std::array is an aggregate:

2 An array is an aggregate (8.5.1) that can be initialized with the syntax

  array a = { initializer-list };

where initializer-list is a comma-separated list of up to N elements whose types are convertible to T.

In general, it's agreed that you need an extra pair of outer braces to initialize the underlying aggregate, which looks something like T elems[N]. In paragraph 3, it's explained that this is for exposition purposes and not actually part of the interface. In practice, however, libstdc++ and Clang implement it like that:

  template<typename _Tp, std::size_t _Nm>    struct __array_traits    {      typedef _Tp _Type[_Nm];      static constexpr _Tp&      _S_ref(const _Type& __t, std::size_t __n) noexcept      { return const_cast<_Tp&>(__t[__n]); }    };  template<typename _Tp, std::size_t _Nm>    struct array    {      /* Snip */      // Support for zero-sized arrays mandatory.      typedef _GLIBCXX_STD_C::__array_traits<_Tp, _Nm> _AT_Type;      typename _AT_Type::_Type                         _M_elems;

Clang:

template <class _Tp, size_t _Size>struct _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY array{    /* Snip */    value_type __elems_[_Size > 0 ? _Size : 1];

There are changes between C++11 and C++14 regarding aggregate initialization, however none that would make:

std::array<S, 2> std_arr = {{1, 2}, {3, 4}};

not ill-formed.