From 8557347210587883840 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ec3337d9f2b7ae74 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-12-04 21:03:12 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!metro!news From: maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) Subject: Re: Is a member function a function? (was Re: Q: va_end in C++?) Message-ID: Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia References: Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 04:11:32 GMT Lines: 67 In article jamshid@castro.uucp (Jamshid Afshar) writes: >In article , >Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >>>The term "function" includes member functions. >> >>Jamshid, I do not share your view in this case. >> >>In general, it appears to me that both the ARM and current X3J16 working >>paper are very explicit in specifying whether any given rule applies to >>either "functions" or "member functions". I do not think that the latter >>is considered a subset of the former. Rather, the ARM and the X3J16 WP >>seem (in general) to treat these as two entirely disjoint sets. > >Can you provide examples where the ARM/WP treat functions and member >functions as disjoint sets? Oh, come on. Taking the address of a global function yields a function pointer, taking the address of a non-static member function yields a pointer to member, and THEY are completely and categorically distinct in the ARM. Its quite clear to me that there are two distinct types of functions: global functions and member functions. I'm told the committee decided that a member function was a function. Its possible to decide that a member function is not like an ordinary function, at least until its given an extra argument (for the this pointer). It was possible to decide that a member function is like an ordinary function in that in context it is callable just the same way. However, the committee DID make a decision that distinguishes ordinary functions from members even more strongly, namely to all const qualified returns to control overloading of member functions BUT NOT ORDINARY ONES. class X { void operator[](int); // #1 void operator[](int)const; // #2 }; class Y { friend void operator[](Y&, int); // #3 friend void operator[](Y const&, int); // #4 }; X x(); const X cx(); Y y(); const Y cy(); x()[1]; // calls #1, nonconst version cx()[1]; // calls #2, const version y()[1]; // calls #4, const version cy()[1]; // calls #4, const version I find this distinction disturbing. -- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au Maxtal Pty Ltd, CSERVE:10236.1703 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA