Hi,

My first feeling is this is too drastic of a change in terms of language ergonomics. Perhaps, if you word it a bit differently it would fit a bit better with the rest of the language.
For example, instead of using the "inline" keyword as a placeholder to "whatever is passed after ->", you could make the syntactic sugar to just generate a lambda.

Such that:

v->Init();

would be transformed by the compiler into

v.operator->( [&] (auto& arg) { arg.Init(); } );

By doing so, all you need is the ability to pass more arguments to the operator-> (today it's forbidden).
See how that would work for variant: https://godbolt.org/z/xxKnE44dr

That might still be a big stretch, but it seems to me it would be more reasonable.

Best Regards,
Breno G.






On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:49 AM Михаил Найденов via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Hello, again I want to point to pattern matching. 

I mean, we are 2/3 there. 
1) we have the desire to have PM as expression, so that we can use it on the RHS of assignment
2) we have Concepts, so that we can select the alternative, based on its structure

Last point is to have an attractive syntax, so that people will not require another language feature.


On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:59 PM Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
My draft paper can be downloaded from here:

    http://www.virjacode.com/proposal_operator_inline.pdf

Of course it needs loads more work.
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
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