------- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-05 17:54 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > &c.f isn't even valid, it should be &C::f > > I didn't check the code, but that message isn't used for member variables or > nested types, so if it does only apply to member functions then I think > changing '&' to '()' unconditionally makes sense.
It also strictly wouldn't make things worse: the message we currently print hardly ever has anything to do with what is really happening, and replacing the ampersand by parentheses can only make things better even if it isn't always correct. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31423
