I will stop now :)

struct Circle {
   float r;
  // the new standard attribute "self"
  [[self]]
   float area() const noexcept {
       return pi*r*r;
   }
};

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 00:20, DBJ <dbj_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> struct Circle {
> float r;
> // spot the new keyword "self"
> // concise but prone to abuse?
> float area() const noexcept {
> self {
> return pi*r*r;
> }
> }
> };
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 22:28, Gašper Ažman <gasper.azman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Has been suggested and rejected. Free identifiers after the parameter
>> list eat up too much syntax.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 20:53 DBJ <dbj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok there is a completely different approach but perhaps a clean solution
>>> :
>>>
>>> struct Circle {
>>> float r;
>>> // spot the new specifier "self"
>>> float area() self const noexcept { return pi*r*r; } // concise
>>> };
>>>
>>> It might be no further explanation is needed; at least on this forum,
>>> one might hope.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 17:32, Gašper Ažman via Std-Proposals <
>>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has been discussed and rejected *for now*, but the design space
>>>> there has been left open.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing preventing us from doing something like that in a
>>>> future version of C++.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Phil Endecott <
>>>> std_proposals_list_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gašper Ažman wrote:
>>>>> > The committee actually did look at the (F this) syntax and it took a
>>>>> long
>>>>> > time to convince them that it's a bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the lack of plain access to members without having
>>>>> to write this-> or this. or self. that I regret losing.
>>>>> I.e. I don't want to be able to write "this.foo" in
>>>>> preference to "self.foo" in such a method, I want to be
>>>>> able to just write "foo".
>>>>>
>>>>> I have sometimes wondered whether it would he helpful to
>>>>> provide syntax to bring arbitrary objects' members into
>>>>> scope. Without this, free functions are inherently more
>>>>> verbose than methods. I think that Pascal and/or Modula-2
>>>>> had a "with" statement that allowed this. Example:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct Circle {
>>>>> float r;
>>>>> float area() const { return pi*r*r; } // concise
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> float area(const Circle& circle)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return pi*circle.r*circle.r; // verbose
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> float area(const Circle& circle)
>>>>> {
>>>>> with circle {
>>>>> return pi*r*r; // concise
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll probably tell me this was considered and rejected years ago...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Phil.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>>>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>>>
>>>