🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul20.235728.29058@microsoft.com>, jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:
 
> In case you've forgotten, I've answered these "objections" repeatedly.
     
> |      2) Your operator.() proposal continues to require forwarding functions
> |         for member operators and conversion operators in the target class,
> |         even though the requirement of forwarding functions was one of the
> |         most significant criticisms you advanced against the status quo.
 
> My operator.() proposal DOES NOT require forwarding functions unless
> the implementor of the reference class DESIRES to use forwarding functions.
> The functions that the implementor of the reference class might *desire*
> to implement are those small set of functions that ARM currently requires
> the LHS to be a member, . . .
 
> |      3) Your operator.() proposal requires use of circumlocutions to access
> |         members of the smart reference object.
> 
> My proposal DOES NOT require use of circumlocutions to access members of
> the smart reference object.  Circumlocations are POSSIBLE, if the implementor
> of the reference class so desires.  . . .

Perhaps concrete examples might make these points clearer?  I know they
take more time than stating the points, and often take up many lines, but
they have a marvellous way of clearing things up.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ