"Hans Aberg" <remove.haberg@matematik.su.se> wrote:

> See the thread "Polymorphic function pointers" for a reply.

Thank you for giving any hint at all. Maybe a message-id would
have helped me more. There is no thread with this subject on the
server I'm using. Google couldn't find anything useful either.

---
[ 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.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Markus Schaaf" <m.schaaf.exp-jun2001@gmx.de> wrote:

> > GACK.  The fact that a cast is necessary here is a big tipoff.  There's
> > no guarantee that this works.   Pointer to derived member is not necessarily
> > convertable to pointer to base member.
>
> That's a shame. It seems to me that this conversion is always
> possible. Am I missing something? Is this simply an omission
> in the standard or are there actually reasons to do so?

I'm sorry. I hadn't read the thread, but only these 3 sentences I've
quoted first and got them wrong. The thing I am thinking about is
the following:

    struct B {};
    struct D : B {};

    struct A { D d; };

    ...
    typedef B A::*PAB;
    typedef D A::*PAD;
    PAB p = &A::d;       // need not work, but would be nice to have
    PAD q = static_cast< PAD >( p );  // this one too

---
[ 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.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]