Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #6526 > unrolled thread

Re: Is this a functor?

Started byUniverse <cl3334444@gmail.com>
First post2011-06-09 20:06 -0700
Last post2011-06-10 17:37 -0400
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++


Contents

  Re: Is this a functor? Universe <cl3334444@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 20:06 -0700
    Re: Is this a functor? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-10 17:15 +1200
      Re: Is this a functor? Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-06-10 17:37 -0400

#6526 — Re: Is this a functor?

FromUniverse <cl3334444@gmail.com>
Date2011-06-09 20:06 -0700
SubjectRe: Is this a functor?
Message-ID<6c88fb03-c772-4664-be54-527ca3c52e26@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
Thank you for answering :) Could someone tell me where C++ Standard mentions this form? I have looked up C++ standard 2003, but can't find it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#6528

FromIan Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Date2011-06-10 17:15 +1200
Message-ID<95dnirFq1tU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#6526
On 06/10/11 03:06 PM, Universe wrote:

Please don't use the sociopathic "new" google interface, it ruins 
threading so no one knows who you are replying to!.

> Thank you for answering :) Could someone tell me where C++ Standard mentions this form? I have looked up C++ standard 2003, but can't find it.

Which form are you referring to?

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#6590

FromVictor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>
Date2011-06-10 17:37 -0400
Message-ID<isu2r7$hkt$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#6528
On 6/10/2011 1:15 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 06/10/11 03:06 PM, Universe wrote:
>
> Please don't use the sociopathic "new" google interface, it ruins
> threading so no one knows who you are replying to!.
>
>> Thank you for answering :) Could someone tell me where C++ Standard
>> mentions this form? I have looked up C++ standard 2003, but can't find
>> it.
>
> Which form are you referring to?
>

I think Universe was referring to the form of declaration of the 
argument like this:

    int bar(double); // declaration of a function
    int foo(int blah(double) = bar)
    {
        // here 'blah' is the name of the argument
        // where a declaration that otherwise would be a function
        // degrades into a pointer-to-function
        return blah(3.14159);
    }

I don't remember exactly where in the Standard it is, but I am fairly 
certain that it's in the same approximate place as in the new Standard, 
of which one can find a draft version on the Standard Committee's page.

V
-- 
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++


csiph-web