Calling C++ class methods via a function pointer

Read this for detail :

// 1 define a function pointer and initialize to NULL

int (TMyClass::*pt2ConstMember)(float, char, char) const = NULL;

// C++

class TMyClass
{
public:
   int DoIt(float a, char b, char c){ cout << "TMyClass::DoIt"<< endl; return a+b+c;};
   int DoMore(float a, char b, char c) const
         { cout << "TMyClass::DoMore" << endl; return a-b+c; };

   /* more of TMyClass */
};
pt2ConstMember = &TMyClass::DoIt; // note: <pt2Member> may also legally point to &DoMore

// Calling Function using Function Pointer

(*this.*pt2ConstMember)(12, 'a', 'b');

How do I obtain a function pointer for a class member function, and later call that member function with a specific object?

It's easiest to start with a typedef. For a member function, you add the classname in the type declaration:

typedef void(Dog::*BarkFunction)(void);

Then to invoke the method, you use the ->* operator:

(pDog->*pBark)();

Also, if possible, I’d like to invoke the constructor via a pointer as well. Is this possible, and if so, what is the preferred way to do this?

I don't believe you can work with constructors like this - ctors and dtors are special. The normal way to achieve that sort of thing would be using a factory method, which is basically just a static function that calls the constructor for you. See the code below for an example.

I have modified your code to do basically what you describe. There's some caveats below.

#include <iostream>

class Animal
{
public:

    typedef Animal*(*NewAnimalFunction)(void);

    virtual void makeNoise()
    {
        std::cout << "M00f!" << std::endl;
    }
};

class Dog : public Animal
{
public:

    typedef void(Dog::*BarkFunction)(void);

    typedef Dog*(*NewDogFunction)(void);

    Dog () {}

    static Dog* newDog()
    {
        return new Dog;
    }

    virtual void makeNoise ()
    {
        std::cout << "Woof!" << std::endl;
    }
};

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    // Call member function via method pointer
    Dog* pDog = new Dog ();
    Dog::BarkFunction pBark = &Dog::makeNoise;

    (pDog->*pBark)();

    // Construct instance via factory method
    Dog::NewDogFunction pNew = &Dog::newDog;

    Animal* pAnimal = (*pNew)();

    pAnimal->makeNoise();

    return 0;
}

Now although you can normally use a Dog* in the place of an Animal* thanks to the magic of polymorphism, the type of a function pointer does not follow the lookup rules of class hierarchy. So an Animal method pointer is not compatible with a Dog method pointer, in other words you can't assign a Dog* (*)() to a variable of type Animal* (*)().

The static newDog method is a simple example of a factory, which simply creates and returns new instances. Being a static function, it has a regular typedef (with no class qualifier).

Having answered the above, I do wonder if there's not a better way of achieving what you need. There's a few specific scenarios where you would do this sort of thing, but you might find there's other patterns that work better for your problem. If you describe in more general terms what you are trying to achieve, the hive-mind may prove even more useful!

Related to the above, you will no doubt find the Boost bind library and other related modules very useful.

I don't think anyone has explained here that one issue is that you need "member pointers" rather than normal function pointers.

Member pointers to functions are not simply function pointers. In implementation terms, the compiler cannot use a simple function address because, in general, you don't know the address to call until you know which object to dereference for (think virtual functions). You also need to know the object in order to provide the this implicit parameter, of course.

Having said that you need them, now I'll say that you really need to avoid them. Seriously, member pointers are a pain. It is much more sane to look at object-oriented design patterns that achieve the same goal, or to use a boost::function or whatever as mentioned above - assuming you get to make that choice, that is.

If you are supplying that function pointer to existing code, so you really need a simple function pointer, you should write a function as a static member of the class. A static member function doesn't understand this, so you'll need to pass the object in as an explicit parameter. There was once a not-that-unusual idiom along these lines for working with old C code that needs function pointers

class myclass
{
  public:
    virtual void myrealmethod () = 0;

    static void myfunction (myclass *p);
}

void myclass::myfunction (myclass *p)
{
  p->myrealmethod ();
}

Since myfunction is really just a normal function (scope issues aside), a function pointer can be found in the normal C way.

EDIT - this kind of method is called a "class method" or a "static member function". The main difference from a non-member function is that, if you reference it from outside the class, you must specify the scope using the :: scope resolution operator. For example, to get the function pointer, use &myclass::myfunction and to call it use myclass::myfunction (arg);.

This kind of thing is fairly common when using the old Win32 APIs, which were originally designed for C rather than C++. Of course in that case, the parameter is normally LPARAM or similar rather than a pointer, and some casting is needed.