🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 1663@et.se, Dan Holmsand <dan@et.se> writes:

>Is operator.() banned from the standards discussion?

No, it is not banned, but it has already had more chances and more
discussion than any other proposal for language extension, bar none.
(One argument goes that it isn't an extension since it merely removes
a restriction, but let's not quibble.)

Operator.() was the subject of heated debate in this forum for about three
years. It was the subject of extensive debate and several proposals in the C++
Committee over a period of about three years. After a proposal was voted down
by an overwhelming majority of the committee, the major proponent
of operator.() persuaded people that it had not received fair treatement.
Yet another proposal was submitted, debated, and voted down by an
overwhelming majority. (No other firmly rejected proposal has been accorded
so many chances.)

It's hard for me to imagine that anyone could come up with new arguments
in favor of operator.() that also answer the objections to it. If you think
you can do so, go ahead, but do yourself and everyone else a favor and
acquaint yourself with the discussion that has already occurred. Note
especially the arguments in the ARM and D&E against "operator dot".
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]