On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 6:28 PM Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 7:04 PM Jarrad Waterloo wrote:
> >
> > I really think this needs to be a language feature that is portable.
>
>
> I agree that it should be a portable language feature in C++26,

What is "it"? Because the two of you are talking about two
*fundamentally* different things here.

You want to get a free function pointer that behaves exactly like the
memer pointer does. Jarrad's proposal *is not that*.

Jarrad's proposal is to convert a member function pointer into a free
function pointer that calls *exactly* the member function that was
specified in the expression that extracted the member pointer. That
is, no virtual dispatch.

These aren't the same thing. You would not get what you want from
Jarrad's proposal and vice-versa.

> And while I'm talking . . . maybe it would be worth mentioning that
> name mangling should be standardised too?

I'm going to ignore the fact that this is a core ABI issue and
therefore cannot ever be standardized and instead ask a different
question. From a standard perspective... what is "name mangling"?
Like, what would it mean?

Name mangling is an implementation detail used to allow ABIs designed
for C to work with C++ function overloading, namespaces, and the like.
That's it. C++ has features that allow two entities to have the same
name yet are different. C ABIs can't handle that. Name mangling is how
they square that circle. It is completely invisible to a user writing
standard C++.