Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!flaps
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Pointers to Inline Members
Message-ID: <8808271631.AA21050@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Toronto
References: <3690002@wdl1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 88 11:11:10 EDT


In article <3690002@wdl1.UUCP> rme@wdl1.UUCP (Richard M Emberson) writes:
>Question: What about pointers to inline function members? 
>
>Is this disallowed or should C++ keep "real" functions of
>all the inline functions so that pointers to them can still be
>taken.

It seems that the current C++ compiler (at my site) handles this
correctly, just like with pointers to consts, for example -- it creates
an actual C-language object if and only if its address is taken.

While testing this, I found the compiler unwilling to take a local
declaration of the form:
	int (*f)(int);
, and when looking through Stroustrup to try to find what I did wrong,
this seemed to be right but I couldn't find any example of it!  He
seems always to declare function-pointers outside of functions, i.e. as
external variables.  Furthermore, the compiler DOES accept:
	auto int (*f)(int);
as a local declaration.

Any clues?  I'm using cfront 1.2.1 2/16/87, according to the usage
message.  The actual program used is the following, which fails to
compile when the word ``auto'' is removed.  As shown it correctly
outputs "3 4".

#include <stream.h>

class classname {
public:
    int f(int x) { return x; }
};

int main()
{
    class classname xxx;
    auto int (classname::*g)(int);

    cout << xxx.f(3) << " ";
    g = &(classname::f);
    cout << (xxx.*g)(4) << "\n";

    return 0;
}

ajr

--
owotd (rot13): fabgentf