From: "Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH]" <cp1v45 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Casting a class as a function pointer.
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:29:40 -0400
Organization: Nortel Networks
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <378B7784.E718C436@americasm01.nt.com>
References: <378A2FFE DOT D9A4F8A0 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com> <slrn7ol5nn DOT 7fp DOT sbnaran AT localhost DOT localdomain> <378AB489 DOT 75F19B1E AT unb DOT ca> <slrn7omnrb DOT c2d DOT sbnaran AT localhost DOT localdomain>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bmerhc00.ca.nortel.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/712)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Siemel Naran wrote:

> >> I think that it is possible.  Probably something along the lines of this:
> >>    int (operator () *const)(int) { return &f; }
> >That gets a parse error before "*".
> Yes, I know.  But I mean that the solution is something along the lines
> of this, where the "operator" keyword appears after the return type of
> the returned function.  Kind of like for the member function returning
> a pointer to a non-member or class static function.  I tried various
> combinations, all without any luck.  Ask on comp.std.c++ as you might
> get an answer.

    I'm beginning to think that it isn't possible.  As someone already told me.

> Incidentally, how to make an array of function pointers using 'new'
> and without using 'typedef', and without using containers.  With
> typedef, we say

    I think this suffers from the same problem, and is impossible.

> >    Thanx for the advice, but I'm not actually trying to use this construct,
> >I'm making a code parser and just wanted to know what to expect.
> Fine.  If you don't know what to do just yet, just have your code
> parser reject this outright.  I don't think anyone writes codes like
> this anyway.

    Actually, what I'm going to do is accept any standard cast as an operator:
operator int (*)() ();

This isn't syntactically correct, but it should never arrise and it means I
don't have to make another type parser.

--
     -Rolf Campbell (39)3-6318