Is it legal to assign a template function to a function pointer this way

[cindypwl]

I was looking at some code in the MS NG, and I saw this code listed.
template <class T>class List{};

template<class T>
bool MySortFunc(List<T>& list){return true;}

template <class T>struct SORT{typedef bool (*FnPtr)(List<T>& list);};

int main(){
List<int> MyList;
List<long> MyList2;
SORT<int>::FnPtr Sort = &MySortFunc; //***No template type!!!!!!!
Sort(MyList);

I would think that the function pointer assignment would not compile
with out using the templae type.
SORT<int>::FnPtr Sort = &MySortFunc<int>;

But I was able to compile this with out the type on both VC++ and
Comeau.

So is this code legal, or are the compilers wrong to compile it
successfully?

[Bob Hairgrove]

On 19 Mar 2006 05:00:16 -0800, ci******@lycos.com wrote:

I was looking at some code in the MS NG, and I saw this code listed.
template <class T>class List{};

template<class T>
bool MySortFunc(List<T>& list){return true;}

template <class T>struct SORT{typedef bool (*FnPtr)(List<T>& list);};

int main(){
List<int> MyList;
List<long> MyList2;
SORT<int>::FnPtr Sort = &MySortFunc; //***No template type!!!!!!!
Sort(MyList);

I would think that the function pointer assignment would not compile
with out using the templae type.
SORT<int>::FnPtr Sort = &MySortFunc<int>;

But I was able to compile this with out the type on both VC++ and
Comeau.

So is this code legal, or are the compilers wrong to compile it
successfully?

It is legal. The compiler instantiates MySortFunc<int> automatically
because it is the only possible candidate. Otherwise, you might have
to disambiguate it. The compiler is very clever in this regard (well,
most modern compilers are, anyway).

--
Bob Hairgrove
No**********@Home.com