In article <AARo6bhm72@ibs.nsk.su> max@ibs.nsk.su writes:

 struct Class;
 typedef int (Class::*MemberFunction)(void);
 struct Class {
     /* .... */
     operator MemberFunction();  // possible without a typedef?
 }

>[...] The way to read and write in this truly
>hieroglyphical notation is given in Kernighan&Ritchie's book. Let's
>try:

Because an `operator' conversion function declaration is so different
from a C function declaration, I think we should instead be looking at
the C++ grammar given in the ARM and CPL2.

>1. What we need is a type cast:
> operator <some type> ();

In article <1nocsgINN82f@emx.cc.utexas.edu> jamshid@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Jamshid Afshar) writes:
|What's wrong with the grammar in the ARM and CPL2?

Its a very loose upper bound.  IE it permits many things that
you and I would consider obvious syntax errors.