C++11 class in std::map as Value with private constructors - c++11

Question

Here is the simplified version of the class which is stored as value in a map which works fine in VS2008 (note that all members are private):
class Value{
friend class FriendClass;
friend class std::map<std::string, Value>;
friend struct std::pair<const std::string, Value>;
friend struct std::pair<std::string, Value>;
Value() {..}
Value(Value const& other) {..}
... rest members...
};
Code (called from FriendClass, so this can reach private constructors) :
FriendClass::func()
{
std::map<const std::string, Value> map;
map.insert(std::make_pair(std::string("x"), Value()));
}
This compiles w/o any error in VS2008, but fails on VS2015/C++11:
file.cpp(178): error C2664: 'std::_Tree_iterator>>> std::_Tree>::insert(std::_Tree_const_iterator>>>,const std::pair &)': cannot convert argument 1 from 'std::pair' to 'std::pair &&'
with
[
_Kty=std::string,
_Ty=Value,
_Pr=std::less,
_Alloc=std::allocator>
]
and
[
_Kty=std::string,
_Ty=Value
]
file.cpp(178): note: Reason: cannot convert from 'std::pair' to 'std::pair'
with
[
_Kty=std::string,
_Ty=Value
]
file.cpp(178): note: No user-defined-conversion operator available that can perform this conversion, or the operator cannot be called
If I make the Value copy constructor public, it compiles fine in VS2015 as well. But that was private with purpose, and only made available for std::map and std::pair. However, it seems in C++11 additional friend access are also necessary to declare. Which are these?
Thank you.

Answer 1

I don't have access to the compilers you mentioned, but here's what I'm seeing on g++ 5.3.
Consider the following essentially-same version of your question:
#include <map>
#include <utility>
class foo
{
friend std::pair<const int, foo>;
foo(const foo &other){}
public:
foo(){}
};
int main()
{
using map_t = std::map<int, foo>;
map_t m;
m.insert(std::make_pair(2, foo()));
// m.emplace(2, foo());
}
(The default ctor is public, but that's non-essential and just makes the example shorter.)
In main, note the two lines
m.insert(std::make_pair(2, foo()));
// m.emplace(2, foo());
Reversing the comments builds fine, but the version shown doesn't:
/usr/include/c++/5/bits/stl_pair.h: In instantiation of ‘constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(_U1&&, const _T2&) [with _U1 = int; <template-parameter-2-2> = void; _T1 = int; _T2 = foo]’:
/usr/include/c++/5/bits/stl_pair.h:281:72: required from ‘constexpr std::pair<typename std::__decay_and_strip<_Tp>::__type, typename std::__decay_and_strip<_T2>::__type> std::make_pair(_T1&&, _T2&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = foo; typename std::__decay_and_strip<_T2>::__type = foo; typename std::__decay_and_strip<_Tp>::__type = int]’
stuff.cpp:21:34: required from here
stuff.cpp:9:2: error: ‘foo::foo(const foo&)’ is private
foo(const foo &other){}
^
Looking at the source code std_pair.h shows that indeed it is trying to call the copy constructor. Unfortunately, you friended std::pair, but not std::make_pair.
The emplace version doesn't have this problem, but I suspect that this is implementation dependent. In general, if you want a container to store a completely opaque class, I would suggest that you use a container of std::shared_ptrs to them. This allows you to completely specify which function/class can create/copy objects in your own code, and makes no assumptions on the library's code.