You can have the behaviour when deducing this (p0847) lands.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:28 AM Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On 2020-03-05 11:59, Jake Arkinstall via Std-Proposals wrote:
> I'd choose a different new keyword rather than add a new rule on 'this'
> which is bound to have some confusing edge cases (especially when
> passing this to template functions - does it resolve as a pointer? A
> reference? A special object that tries to behave as both?).
>
> I'd personally go with self *≡* *this, such that self.member = this->member.

The problem is that `self` is already used in code base. Ironically,
often to emulate `this` (e.g. in a proxy class that refers to the real
object with a `self` data member).

> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, 08:50 Marian Darius via Std-Proposals,
> <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org <mailto:std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>>
> wrote:
>
>     It feels weird that inside a class the keyword 'this' is a pointer
>     to the current object, when it has reference semantics:
>     - it is not re-assignable
>     - it is not null (as not null as a reference can be)
>
>     It seems a natural fit for 'this' to be a reference, making the
>     meaning of '&&', 'const&&' and 'const&' qualified methods
>     a little more intuitive (that becomes the type of 'this' in that
>     method).
>
>     The biggest problem with changing 'this' to a reference is
>     backwards-compatibility. But we already have a feature in
>     this language that we can look at to solve this issue: function
>     references convert to function pointers back-and-forth implicitly.
>     Here is a simple example: https://compiler-explorer.com/z/EdVLD4
>
>     So we could make 'this' a similar style of reference that implicitly
>     converts to a pointer when needed (for example, when using '->'
>     operator or passing to a function taking a pointer).
>
>     Disclaimer: I am not an expert, and this is not a well thought-out
>     proposal. I just want some feedback on the idea and on whether I
>     should maybe write a formal proposal for it.
>
>     Is this something that interests people? It feels like it might make
>     the language easier to use and understand, especially to beginners.
>
>     Was this proposed before? If so, what happened to that proposal?
>     Is there something hopelessly broken that I didn't think of that can
>     make this unfeasible?
>
>     Darius
>     --
>     Std-Proposals mailing list
>     Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org <mailto:Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
>     https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
>

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals