------- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-07-18 13:40 ------- (In reply to comment #0)
> Everyone knows that in C, "&function_name" and "function_name" are generally > equivalent-- you can write: > func_ptr_type* f = &function_name; > or > func_ptr_type* f = function_name; > > So it is surprising to me that > myFoo(bar); > seems to behave differently than: > myFoo(&bar); The difference is that C++ has references whereas C doesn't. 'bar' has type 'reference to function', whereas '&bar' is 'pointer to function'. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28385
