> Except when it doesn't, when operator& is overloaded. That's why we have
std::to_address.

The idea here seems to allow overloading &* so it's not really solving
any overload problems. You'd still have to use std::addressof.

Jeremy

On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 11:43 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 19 October 2024 08:19:25 GMT-7 Jeremy Rifkin via Std-Proposals
> wrote:
> > Why does this need to be an operator when &*it already works as you want?
>
> Except when it doesn't, when operator& is overloaded. That's why we have
> std::to_address.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals