opStar

[Bill Baxter]

0ffh wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Well, Janice's point still stands.  If that were a real justification 
>> then we should be jumping up and down about the fact that ptr.sizeof 
>> returns 4 instead of the size of the thing it points to.
> 
> IMHO it's not quite the same. Usually you wouldn't create structs with
> a member called "sizeof", whereas a member called "val" or "value" is
> a rather common beast. I admit this could be circumvented by using a
> less common property name like "deref", but that was not my point.
> What I sighed about was the apparent lack of reading before ranting.
> 
>> Walter should just address the real issue.  Are smart pointers in D 
>> really going to require (*p).member?  Or is there something else in 
>> the works for transparent overriding of member access?
> 
> Believe me, I am also not happy about "(*p).member". I wonder if getting
> back -> for that purpose (as has been suggested) might be viable. Would
> make "p->member". Or maybe "p.deref.member" if you need, but please not
> "p.value.member", I think that might break a lot of code.

Or instead of .deref you could call the property something like, oh i 
dunno, "opStar".  ;)

--bb