On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:40 PM Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:10 PM J Decker <d3ck0r@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 7:07 PM Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,

Sadly your idea doesn't work in C++, because C++ has member functions.  That is, we can write things like this:

struct Widget {
    void reset();  // reset the widget
std::unique_ptr<Widget> p = std::make_unique<Widget>();
p->reset();  // reset the pointed-to widget by calling Widget::reset() member function
p.reset();  // reset the pointer's own value to nullptr

But, isn't the .reset() implemented on the unique_ptr<> template as a operator. override?  which takes precedence over the default behavior...

No, C++ doesn't permit overloading the "." operator at all.
It's just that `p.reset()` calls `unique_ptr<Widget>::reset`,
and `p->reset()` calls `unique_ptr<Widget>::operator->` followed by `Widget::reset`.

I think you'll have to learn more about how C++ currently works, before working on proposals to change it.
A appricate you leveraing my acknowledgment of limitation as a dismissal; it's more a factor that I need to learn the right way to say it.

It doesn't look like that's either a instance of a class/struct/union or a pointer to a class/struct/union, but rather is a unique pointer to a class/struct/union.
Also would have no effect on references... I would bet that the modification of the compiler to accomplish a compatible, non-breaking change is either a small addition to 'if left hand is a '*' pointer or a instance of a struct/class/union.

Because the cases that matter are all error cases now.