On 2020-03-05 03:44, J Decker via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Reformatted this to resemble standard proposal
>
> https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
> It fails to be ' The proposal may be in PDF, HTML, or plain text formats. '
>
> TL;DR
>
> C Standard section 6.5.2.3 Structure and union members
>
> add text in [ ]
>
> 1- The first operand of the . operator shall have a qualified or
> unqualified structure or union type or [‘‘pointer to qualified or
> unqualified structure’’ or ‘‘pointer to qualified or unqualified
> union’’,] and the second operand shall name a member of that type.
>
> C++ Standard section 8.5.1.5 Class member access
>
> add: if the first expression of (dot) is a pointer [to an object], then
> E1.E2 is converted to (*(E1)).E2 .

I don't find your motivation compelling. The other languages you refer
to (which ones? Java? JavaScript?) likely don't have the concept of a
pointer and thus don't need a separate operator. You've been shown
examples where having operators . and -> behave the same would break
code. Special casing the proposal just for raw pointers is breaking
consistency. So no, just no.