-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart
Way. We are not talking about the functions, we're talking about their types. In other words, the traits do not inspect individual values of int (*)(int) -- they inspect the type int(*)(int) itself. I don't think there's any problem with calling int(*)(int) a nonmember function pointer type.
If you're thinking about whether the type is that of a static member function, then you won't be thinking that you should use "nonmember."
Just to be pedantic, the types of member functions are regular function types also. Furthermore, you *can* have cv-qualified function types, such as 'int (int) const'. The differences are that you cannot declare a non-member function with a cv-qualified function type and that the types of pointers to actual functions differ based on whether they are (non-static) member functions. E.g. typedef void func(); func f; struct x { func f; }; &f -> void (*)() &x::f -> void (x::*)() Likewise: template<class> struct remove_pointer_to_member; template<class R, class C> struct remove_pointer_to_member { typedef R type; }; remove_pointer_to_member< void (x::*)() >::type -> void () Basically, the argument between member and non-member doesn't apply to function types. If, OTOH, you're really talking about pointers to functions and pointers to member functions, then a type difference becomes evident and there is a significant distinction. In that case, the types are "pointers to function" (which is the type classification of a pointer to static member function) and "pointer to member function" (which is the type classification of a pointer to non-static member function). I think it is a misuse of terminology to say "the type of a function" and really mean "the type of a pointer to function." Regards, Paul Mensonides