By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,376 Members | 1,566 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,376 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Rationale behind requiring ampersand and fully qualified name to form a member function pointer

P: n/a
I hope Mr. Stroustrup can give an answer to this question:

What was rationale behind the requirements to use an ampersand and a fully
qualified name of a function, to form a pointer to a member function? Is
there any syntax ambiguity without those? MS C++ compiler is quite happy
when a plain function name is used (I haven't tried it in ANSI compliance
mode, though), so for long time I've been pretty sure that it's OK...
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this question for a faster answer!
Share on Google+

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.