C / C++ / MFC

George_George wrote:

3. I doubt whether it is useful to define a function pointer with empty parameter list -- too restricted.

George_George wrote:

I am sorry to make you mad, CPallini. Maybe my question is too hard?

George_George wrote:

1. I do not quite catch your points, why a class must implement a function without any parameters?

George_George wrote:

2. I want to confirm that, the declaration of variable pmf could be pointed to any member functions of class (type) T which returns type R and no input parameters?

toxcct wrote:

exactly. so, I think the compiler would probably complain (to be verified though) if it canoot determine which function to call if it find more than one.

class Foo
{
	public:

		int Foo1() {};

		int Foo2() {};
};

class Goo
{
public:

	int (Foo::*pmf)();
};

int main()
{
	return 0;
}