Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Proposal - Allow '.' operator to work on pointers (again sortof)
From: J Decker (d3ck0r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-03-04 21:09:00
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 5:11 PM Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals <
> 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 22.214.171.124 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 [ââpointer to qualified or
> > unqualified structureââ or ââpointer to qualified or unqualified
> > unionââ,] and the second operand shall name a member of that type.
> > C++ Standard section 126.96.36.199 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
> 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.
I'm sorry I have seen 0 examples where they conflict in meaning and don't
continue to work the same way.
This maybe isn't as compelling for C++ which continues to have to use ->
I have noted the complaint and will consider improving that.
rust, c#, go, kotlin, dart, typescript, ruby, python, swift (repurposes ->
as a type)....
I don't know any that don't wait... https://cucumber.io/ this is a testing
C# has value type 'struct' which are values and are accessed with '.' where
a 'class' is always a reference type, and is always dereferencing a
-- > Std-Proposals mailing list > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals >
STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups