> And a functor, by definition only handles one method? Which
> is why what. I have written is not a functor?

Yes. But that not to say what you have written isn't close (and damn
cool). I just wouldn't call it a Functor per se. Certainly, your first
example is very close, since it only stores a single block, so I see
why you'd call it a Functor. But it's the block inside that's actually
the Functor. You're creating more of a Functor Delegator. A minor
distinction no doubt. Maybe not even worth considering. But I thought
I'd point it out.

T.