Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/10/08/20:11:08
Endlisnis wrote:
> This is wrong. It would take the address of the variable
> containing the
> address of the function.
No. In these cases PrintMode0 and PrintMode1 are both member function
pointers of the appropriate class and prototype for the member function
pointer which will be used to store them. The class designation (e.g.,
&Test::PrintMode0) is not necessary because these entities are being
referenced within the scope of that class already, so they are not
needed (e.g., &PrintMode0).
Note that even in ANSI C, using the address-of operator on a function
has no effect; it's superfluous, but it certainly doesn't "take the
address of the variable containing the address of the function," since
there is no such thing.
--
Erik Max Francis / email max AT alcyone DOT com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon (efnet) / finger max AT sade DOT alcyone DOT com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ The work will teach you how to do it.
/ (an Estonian proverb)
- Raw text -