or:

p.::::free() // yes, this must be valid code

but this is not here nor there.
If it is a function, you call it like a function.
I would rather have some support for methods to have function like syntax instead of the other way around.
But regardless, it is too confusing, I've never had to template code where there was function name that is sometimes an overload and sometimes a method. Nothing that would justify not knowing what it is in advance and would require a convenience.
And the potential to shoot oneself in the foot with this is quite high.
The risk outweighs the benefit, specifically when the benefit is =0.



________________________________
From: Shady <inheritanceiskey_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:11:51 PM
To: Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]>
Cc: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>; dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden] <dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Alternative Free Function Calling Syntax.

Yes the paper would allow using builtin types

```
int* p{};

// p.free();

// ERROR: int* has no members

p.::free(); // fine

```

This would bring builtin types and class types closer together which I think is a good thing