Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!texsun!sun-barr!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!apollo!mrst!sdti!turner
From: turner@sdti.SDTI.COM (Prescott K. Turner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ parsing questions
Summary: It's a typo.
Message-ID: <455@sdti.SDTI.COM>
Date: 10 May 89 16:37:00 GMT
References: <13718@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Reply-To: turner@sdti.UUCP (0006-Prescott K. Turner, Jr.)
Organization: Software Development Technologies, Sudbury MA
Lines: 24

In article <13718@paris.ics.uci.edu> Doug Schmidt <schmidt@crimee.ics.uci.edu> writes:
 X * px;
 ...
>  a.*pi_X = *px.*b; // evaluated as ((*px).*)b.operator int X::*()

>Was this just a typo in the article?  Does C++ 2.0 really evaluate
>things this way?!?!

It's got at least one typo independent of the question you raised.
You can never put a parenthesis between an operator and its operand.
Fixing this gives
  a.*pi_X = *px.*b; // evaluated as (*px).*(b.operator int X::*())

Cfront 1.2, which also supports pointers to members, accepts
  a.*pi_X = (*px).*(b.operator int X::*());
and rejects
  a.*pi_X = *px.*(b.operator int X::*());
so it is very likely that the article meant to say
  a.*pi_X = (*px).*b; // evaluated as (*px).*(b.operator int X::*())
--
Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
Software Development Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 366, Sudbury, MA 01776 USA         (508) 443-5779
UUCP: ...{harvard,mit-eddie}!sdti!turner    Internet: turner@sdti.sdti.com