opStar

[Bill Baxter]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> If you're not going to be able to access members and such via the 
>> opStar, why not just have iterators use a convention like p.val to 
>> access the value pointed too, rather than *p.  Why does it need to be 
>> an operator?
> 
> Because raw pointers don't have a .value property, and can't because
> then you'd have problems with pointers to structs that have a value member.

So what about smart pointers?  Do you really just expect everyone to 
suck it up and get used to writing (*x).foo?

--bb