On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 12:56 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 12:08 PM ஜெய்கணேஷ் குமரன்
<jaiganesh.kumaran@outlook.com> wrote:
> If you're in a context where `function` results in a non-static,
> non-overloaded member function, then `&function` will result in a
> pointer to that function.
> Unfortunately no, this does not work; you must qualify it with the class name.
> From cppreference:
> Expressions such as &(C::f) or &f inside C's member function do not form pointers to member functions.

Well, the three major compilers disagree: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/ddMbecv84
It could be bugs in all of them though. It's a pretty narrow corner case.

Taking the address of a static member function is fine and gives you a pointer-to-function.
The forbidden thing, which I think all compilers do correctly forbid, is when you take the address of a non-static member function to get a pointer-to-member-function:

> I want something like this:
> auto f = &class_name::function;
> class_name* p = f.this_ptr;

That doesn't make any sense. Member pointers are not associated with
any particular instance. That's kind of the point.

+1. This fundamental misunderstanding of what a "pointer to member" actually is, makes me think that the original feature request was mis-motivated too.
(OP wants an easier way to extract pointers-to-member-functions... but at the same time, OP thinks "pointer-to-member-function" means something more like std::bind. So maybe OP is really looking for C++11 lambda syntax? He's certainly not looking for pointers-to-member-functions anymore.)