The bizarre world of typeof()

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

Kagamin wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
> 
>>      // This one fails with the following hilarious message:
>>      // Error: static assert  (is(real function() == function)) is false
>>      static assert (is (typeof(&Foo.bar) == function));
> 
> Failure is valid, compiler just can't show member function types correctly.


I'm not saying it should compile, I'm saying that the compiler should 
give an error when it encounters the expression &Foo.bar, and not just 
because of the failed assertion. It's bad enough that it accepts Foo.bar 
(this is what Don was talking about), but allowing one to take the 
address as well is just nonsense -- even when it's in an is(typeof()) 
expression.

In fact, &Foo.bar actually returns an address. The following compiles:

     class Foo { real bar() { return 1.0; } }
     auto f = &Foo.bar;
     auto x = f();

Of course, when run, it segfaults on the last line. I wonder where f 
actually points to.

-Lars