On Monday, 22 August 2022 at 14:43:24 UTC, Andrey Zherikov wrote:
But the question is still opened: why is `typeof(U().func!0)` not the same as `typeof(U().func!0())`?

Probably because if it were the same, it would be completely impossible to introspect on the type of `U.func!0` directly. The closest you could get would be to examine `typeof(&U.func!0)`; i.e., the type of the function pointer rather than the function itself.

I'm not totally convinced that the current behavior is the correct decision here, but there is a real tradeoff.

Reply via email to