Method pointers are *function* pointers?? Or delegates??

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at
Tue May 22 14:05:12 PDT 2012

On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:29:10 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at> wrote:

> On 5/22/12 1:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I agree, it's unsound. But so is this:
>> int *blah = void;
>> *blah = 5;
>> It doesn't mean that the language should forbid it, or that the compiler
>> isn't implemented as designed.
> Initialization with void is a feature. My example shows the fail of a  
> feature. There is no comparison.

Your example shows an invalid use for a feature.  There are valid uses for  
that feature that are not unsound.

But I think we are on the same page -- the misfeature is not that you  
*can* take a member address, it's the *type* that it is given.

>> At the *very least*, the address to member function operation should be
>> illegal in @safe code.
> It should be verboten. Other means should be devised for achieving  
> whatever utility is there.

I agree, the feature is prone to error.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list