On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, 09:39 J Decker via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 1:04 AM Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025, 07:00 J Decker via Std-Proposals, <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> The most notable complaint is loss of information about the
>>> preceding variable's type.... which can be handled with variable name
>>> notation like 'pBlah' vs 'oBlah'...
>>>
>>
>> No, Hungarian notation is not an acceptable alternative.
>>
>> The second complaint is the conflict with smart pointers...
>>> I wasn't quick enough at the time to say 'well if you're pushing use of
>>> smart pointers, and
>>>
>>
>> What does "pushing use of smart pointers" mean? Sounds like opinionated
>> nonsense.
>>
>
> I feel like there's sections of the minutes missing; it was said something
> like 'we are suggesting use of smart points anyway' with pushing being my
> paraphrase for the same idea... it might have even been pushing; but
> there's only one instance of 'smart' in the minutes, and I'm certain that
> word was said more than once.
>
>
>>
>>
>> this doesn't affect smart pointers, since '.' already has a well defined
>>> behavior... it's a nothing-burger for you anyway; and would just be part of
>>> compatibility with C' (extending '.' to look at the left type).
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If -> is not used for pointers,
>> but is still used for smart pointers and std::optional etc then you haven't
>> really simplified anything. Just created inconsistency where there was
>> consistency before.
>>
>
> I understand this viewpoint; but in having accepted '.' (in a post '.'
> derefercing pointer view) it is a consistent behavior to access a member of
> an object rather than 2 methods. Just because idomatic C++ doesn't get the
> same benefit of 'consistency' now that you mention these things, seems
> unfair to keep others from having it... but then who besides me maintains C
> that is also C++ compilable? Do we/should we really even care about
> compatibility?
>

Yes, we do and we should.