"Richard Corden" <richards_corden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83zntee5xk.fsf@leinster.programmingresearch.ie...
>
> Can someone please explain to me why there is no implicit conversion
> to ptr to member for member functions as there is for non members or
> static functions.
>

Stroustrup addresses this in 'Design and Evolution of C++'
IIRC he didn't want to allow any shortcuts in the syntax since he thought
use of pointer-to-members should always stand out...and unambiguous syntax
helps.

I don't believe there is a technical reason.

Roger Orr
--
MVP in C++ at www.brainbench.com




---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Can someone please explain to me why there is no implicit conversion
to ptr to member for member functions as there is for non members or
static functions.

<CODE>
struct A
{
  void foo ();
};

void bar (void (A::*pf)());
bar (A::foo); // error

</CODE>

Some of the compilers I've tried will generate a warning and continue
(normally saying adding '&').  Is there an example where implicitly
adding the '&' causes problems?

Thanks for your time.

Richard

--
Richard Corden
To reply remove 's' from address

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]