opStar

[BCS]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 11/12/07, BCS <ao at pathlink.com> wrote:
> 
>>s.a; //-> a.opDeref.opDeref.opDeref.a
> 
> 
> You mean s.opDeref.opDeref.opDeref.a
> Yes
> 

:b

> 
>>s.b; //-> a.opDeref.b
> 
> 
> If we go with Bill Baxter's idea, that would be a compile error, since
> a.opDeref.opDeref.opDeref has no member called b. To get at b, you'd
> have to do:
> 
> s.this.opDeref.this.b
> 

I wasn't interested in the expanded form. My issue/question/etc was with 
regards to the issue of "IDENT.IDENT can result in any number of derefs 
depending on the type". I don't see any clean way around this. I'll 
admit I haven't followed the suggestions closely so I could have missed 
something.