pointers, functions, and uniform call syntax

[Carl Sturtivant]

Just to be pellucidly clear, the case you think likely has merit 
is for an enhancement so that
  S* p; //suitably initialized
can e.g. make the call
  p.func(3);
of
  void func(S s, int i) { ... }
or
  void func(ref S s, int i) { ... }
right?
(Where it's important that the S parameter is first in the usual 
way, and the overloading rules are suitably amended to give this 
interpretation suitably low priority.)

Whereas you do not (correct me if I'm wrong) think that an 
implicit conversion of S* to ref S (or S) on function call is a 
good idea, e.g.
  S* p; //suitably initialized
cannot e.g. make the call
  func(p, 3);
of
  void func(S ref s, int i) { ... }
or
  void func(S s, int i) { ... }

So you've 'solved' one of the two calls that monarch_dodra 
indicated concern about, but not the other, which you think 
should require explicit indirection.

Assuming I've summarized the pragmatics of your post correctly 
(apologies otherwise), what is the reason for the non-uniformity 
here? As monarch_dodra points out, the dangers are the same in 
both calls. So if D is OK with one, why not with the other, which 
presents the possibility of nice syntactic simplification.

I guess this is tantamount to asking you why implicit conversion 
of S* to ref S would be so bad in general if you'll effectively 
permit that in certain cases (the call p.func(3) amounts to 
exactly that).

It'd be nice to hear the D insider view on this.

Carl.