From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-11 11:48:36
On Thursday 11 September 2003 12:39 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Richard Hadsell wrote:
> > Peter Dimov wrote:
> >> I think that the actual difference is small to nonexistent, but if
> >> this issue is considered important, we can switch from a member
> >> function pointer to a data member pointer as the unspecified bool
> >> type. ...
> > If the data member would add to its memory footprint, the result would
> > be even less palatable.
> A pointer to an already existing data member will be used, of course. :-)
You don't need an object to get a data member pointer; better that we stick
with a data member in a private nested class.
/me wonders why we chose a member function pointer instead of a member data
pointer in the first place.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk