c++ - how to avoid undefined execution order for the constructors when using std::make_tuple

Question

How can I use std::make_tuple if the execution order of the constructors is important?

For example I guess the execution order of the constructor of class A and the constructor of class B is undefined for:

std::tuple<A, B> t(std::make_tuple(A(std::cin), B(std::cin)));

I came to that conclusion after reading a comment to the question

Translating a std::tuple into a template parameter pack

that says that this

template<typename... args>
std::tuple<args...> parse(std::istream &stream) {
  return std::make_tuple(args(stream)...);
}

implementation has an undefined execution order of the constructors.

Update, providing some context:

To give some more background to what I am trying to do, here is a sketch:

I want to read in some serialized objects from stdin with the help of CodeSynthesis XSD binary parsing/serializing. Here is an example of how such parsing and serialization is done: example/cxx/tree/binary/xdr/driver.cxx

xml_schema::istream<XDR> ixdr (xdr); 
std::auto_ptr<catalog> copy (new catalog (ixdr));

I want to be able to specify a list of the classes that the serialized objects have (e.g. catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass for 3 serialized objects) and store that information as a typedef

template <typename... Args>
struct variadic_typedef {};

typedef variadic_typedef<catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass> myTypes;

as suggested in Is it possible to “store” a template parameter pack without expanding it?

and find a way to get a std::tuple to work with after the parsing has finished. A sketch:

auto serializedObjects(binaryParse<myTypes>(std::cin));

where serializedObjects would have the type

std::tuple<catalog, catalog, someOtherSerializableClass>

Answer 1

The trivial solution is not to use std::make_tuple(...) in the first place but to construct a std::tuple<...> directly: The order in which constructors for the members are called is well defined:

template <typename>
std::istream& dummy(std::istream& in) {
    return in;
}
template <typename... T>
std::tuple<T...> parse(std::istream& in) {
    return std::tuple<T...>(dummy<T>(in)...);
}

The function template dummy<T>() is only used to have something to expand on. The order is imposed by construction order of the elements in the std::tuple<T...>:

template <typename... T>
    template <typename... U>
    std::tuple<T...>::tuple(U...&& arg)
        : members_(std::forward<U>(arg)...) { // NOTE: pseudo code - the real code is
    }                                        //       somewhat more complex

Following the discussion below and Xeo's comment it seems that a better alternative is to use

template <typename... T>
std::tuple<T...> parse(std::istream& in) {
    return std::tuple<T...>{ T(in)... };
}

The use of brace initialization works because the order of evaluation of the arguments in a brace initializer list is the order in which they appear. The semantics of T{...} are described in 12.6.1 [class.explicit.init] paragraph 2 stating that it follows the rules of list initialization semantics (note: this has nothing to do with std::initializer_list which only works with homogenous types). The ordering constraint is in 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list] paragraph 4.