SFINAE approach comparison

Question

The following code shows an SFINAE implementation to check whether a type (basically a class) contains a member function member_func at compile time.

#define CHECKER(func_name,class_name) sizeof(class_name<T>::template func_name<T>(0)) == 1
#include <iostream>
struct A
{
    void member_func();
};
struct B {};
template<typename T>struct Check_If_T_Is_Class_Type
{
    template<typename C> static char func (char C::*p);
    template<typename C> static long func (...);
    enum{val = CHECKER(func,Check_If_T_Is_Class_Type)};
};

//APPROACH 1
template <typename T>struct TypeHasMemberFunc
{
    template <typename C, C> struct TypeCheck;
    template <typename C> struct Prototype_Holder {typedef void (C::*fptr)();};
    template <typename C> static char func(TypeCheck
                                           <
                                              typename Prototype_Holder<C>::fptr,
                                              &C::member_func
                                           >*);
    template <typename C> static long func(...);
    enum {value = CHECKER(func,TypeHasMemberFunc)};
};

//APPROACH 2
template <typename T>struct has_member_func
{
    template<class C> static char func(char (*)[sizeof(&C::member_func)]);
    template<class C> static long func(...);
    enum{value = CHECKER(func,has_member_func)};
};
int main(){
 if(Check_If_T_Is_Class_Type<A>::val)
   std::cout<<TypeHasMemberFunc<A>::value; //using APPROACH 1

 if(Check_If_T_Is_Class_Type<B>::val)
   std::cout<<has_member_func<B>::value; //using APPROACH 2
}

However my question is which approach would you prefer (APPROACH 1 or APPROACH 2) and why?
Do you find any inconsistency in the given approaches? If yes please let me know.

P.S : Assume sizeof(char)!= sizeof(long)

Answer 1

Second approach doesn't check function type (return type or arguments types) and does work with all types, not only class types.