Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 724121
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T06:11:09+00:00 2026-05-14T06:11:09+00:00

I’m using a library that defines an interface: template<class desttype> void connect(desttype* pclass, void

  • 0

I’m using a library that defines an interface:

template<class desttype>
void connect(desttype* pclass, void (desttype::*pmemfun)());

and I have a small hierarchy

class base {
   void foo();
};

class derived: public base { ... };

In a member function of derived, I want to call

connect(this, &derived::foo);

but it seems that &derived::foo is actually a member function pointer of base; gcc spits out

error: no matching function for call to ‘connect(derived* const&, void (base::* const&)())’

I can get around this by explicitly casting this to base *; but why can’t the compiler match the call with desttype = base (since derived * can be implicitly cast to base *)?

Also, why is &derived::foo not a member function pointer of derived?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T06:11:09+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 6:11 am

    Firstly, when you do &class::member the type of the result is always based on the class that member actually declared in. That’s just how unary & works in C++.

    Secondly, the code does not compile because the template argument deduction fails. From the first argument it derives that desttype = derived, while from the second one it derives that desttype = base. This is what makes the compilation to fail. The template argument deduction rules in C++ don’t consider the fact that this can be converted to base * type. Moreover, one can argue that instead of converting this to base * type, the proper way would be to convert &derived::foo from pointer-to-base-member to pointer-to-derived-member type. Both approaches are equally viable (see below).

    Thirdly, member pointers in C++ obey the rules of contra-variance, which means that a pointer to a base class member can be implicitly converted to a pointer to a derived class member. In your case, all you need to do is to help the compiler get through template argument deduction by specifying the argument explicitly, and the code should compile

     connect<derived>(this, &derived::foo);
    

    The above should compile because of contra-variance of &derived::foo pointer, even though it is a pointer to base member. Alternatively you can do

     connect<base>(this, &derived::foo);
    

    This should also compile because of covariance of this pointer.

    You can also use explicit casts on the actual arguments (as you mention in the question) to get through the deduction ambiguity, but in my opinion in this case the explicitly specified template argument looks better.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 368k
  • Answers 368k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer It is explained in Firebird FAQ #29. See the bottom… May 14, 2026 at 5:08 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer My guess would be that it has to do with… May 14, 2026 at 5:08 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer You must use GET_X_LPARAM and GET_Y_LPARAM macros to extract mouse… May 14, 2026 at 5:08 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.