C++ Pointers – Why ‘this’ is Poorly Designed

what is the best syntax and coding style for generating a pointer to a method?

Don't. Use std::function<void()>.

Now, on to the steps. Step 1 is technically illegal, but your compiler allowed it by implicitly taking the address for you. Step 2 is how it should be done. The name of a static function (in this case, Foo::dummy) is a function lvalue and must have it's address taken to be legal C++ and yield a function pointer.

Step 3 simply doesn't make any sense at all. You're trying to assign ... a run-time function pointer ... to a type? That makes no sense whatsoever. And then you try to access ... a member ... of a function pointer? Does not compute.

There are two parts to the answer "What do I do when I want to X in C++?". The first part, for C veterans only, is "Forget whatever you think you learned in C". The second part is about doing X.

how can i write an array of pointers or a pointer to pointers structure to store methods ( static or non-static from real objects )

std::vector<std::function<void()>> arr;

le done.

Why? Because, although consistent terminology is generally good for the entire profession, language designers don't always respect the language use of other language designers, particularly if those other languages are perceived as competitors.

But really, neither use of 'reference' was a very good choice. "References" in C++ are simply a language construct to introduce aliases (alternative names for exactly the same entity) explicitly. Things would have been much clearer of they had simply called the new feature "aliases" in the first place. However, at that time the big difficulty was to make everyone understand the difference between pointers (which require dereferencing) and references (which don't), so the important thing was that it was called something other than "pointer", and not so much specifically what term to use.

Java doesn't have pointers, and is proud of it, so using "pointer" as a term was no option. However, the "references" that it does have behave quite a bit as C++'s pointers do when you pass them around - the big difference is that you can't do the nastier low-level operations (casting, adding...) on them, but they result in exactly the same semantics when you pass around handles to entities that are identical vs. entities that merely happen to be equal. Unfortunately, the term "pointer" carries so many negative low-level associations that it's unlikely ever to be accepted by the Java community.

The result is that both languages use the same vague term for two rather different things, both of which might profit from a more specific name, but neither of which is likely to be replaced any time soon. Natural language, too, can be frustrating sometimes!