On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 7:54 AM Patrice Roy via Liaison <
liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hello Jim.
>
> With your proposal, how would you make sense of the following?
>
> #include <memory>
> struct X {
> int get() const { return 3; }
> };
> void f() {
> auto p = std::make_unique<X>();
> p.get(); // X::get() or std::unique_ptr<X>::get()?
> }
>

that behavior does not generate an error; and it was mentioned all the
other `_ptr` types (unique_ptr) being part of that.
My primary use case is back-porting changes to code that was ported from C
to JS. And C that compiled as C++, and taking those changes and back
porting to the original C...
In this case '.' generates a compilation error, and there is no alternative
meaning to '.' currently that would apply.




> Le jeu. 27 févr. 2020 à 09:41, J Decker via Liaison <
> liaison_at_[hidden]> a écrit :
>
>> I could feature-request this for all known compilers, and that's what
>> this is really an attempt at.
>>
>>
>> this is the gist of it (more of a detailed explanation)
>> https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
>>
>> the TL;DR is really the title.
>>
>> I'd like to know how a community contribution might be submitted for
>> approval for the future c2x.
>>
>> I've been to C++ proposals list, and they have provided me with some
>> feedback, and suggested maybe this is an operable method(?).
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> http://github.com/d3x0r (it's pronounced Decker)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Liaison mailing list
>> Liaison_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
>> Searchable archives: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2020/02/index.php
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2020/02/0044.php
>