On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:21 PM Uecker, Martin <
Martin.Uecker_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, den 27.02.2020, 22:15 -0800 schrieb J Decker:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:09 PM Uecker, Martin via Liaison <
> > liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It is useful to have the information about
> > > whether something is a pointer or not and the
> > > difference between '.' and '->' makes it clear.
> > >
> >
> >
> https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da#the-meaning-of---and--
> >
> > it reduces the points you have to check, but it's really not all that
> > useful when dealing with a variety of languages.. '.' just becomes
> another
> > place to check validity of the expression's values... So yes, it
> increases
> > the potential things to check... but then, nothing stylistically prevents
> > you from continuing to denote that.
>
> If it not enforced by the language, the information
> is unreliable. This is even worse than not having it.
>

I know, this is still really just me... https://github.com/d3x0r/sack and
some arbitrary source...
https://github.com/d3x0r/SACK/blob/master/src/idlelib/idle.c

there's a flags structure that is just instanced in another struct
check->flags.bDispatched = 1

that's used a few times, all other accesses are `->`

can you provide an example of where this information is useful? Porting
the above to c2x it wouldn't change how many things have to be looked at as
suspect...
OR what is the information that distinct operators provides rather than
using '.' everywhere (except, I suppose in C++ where you want to access an
operator override on a pointer type.. )

class x {
   /* operaror->() ... */
};
class x *px;

px->x; (use operator?)



> Best,
> Martin