From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-07 08:30:42
"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> version will
>> pedantically use the term "function type" as defined by the
>> standard and will not
>> refer to a function pointer as being a function type!
>
> That's fine with me. I only really commented to point out that there is no
> "member function type" as a distinct entity. I don't think that 'nonmember' is
> a property of a function type--it just doesn't make sense.
We're only talking about making it a property of a function _pointer_ type.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com