From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 55B0E383FBB4; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 08:44:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 55B0E383FBB4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1692434682;
	bh=R6rlD3z3upe5/uJM4Pq+iQf/ZR2D+/ev+Vs8iAcT42k=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=aL0I8nVJpMPAL6JgkTJX1S2fpdYBZFnt8z65c9wg3eJgMBPUqJdR3BQ/h88gM4xGt
	 XumcoTWepf9OlTWrHhkP7WET031V/CpRRLS0qch5bcvHohZNrYRkpFCL5ZRtQp+jOt
	 BSe8n+lCiCQqu3vKBOlSgVsrXk8b2PYL0CM04asA=
From: "waffl3x at protonmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/102609] [C++23] P0847R7 - Deducing this
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 08:44:39 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: waffl3x at protonmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102609-4-QtrVwMBgtP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102609-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102609-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102609

--- Comment #7 from waffl3x <waffl3x at protonmail dot com> ---
struct S {
    int f(this S*) {
        return 5;
    }
};

int main()
{
    S s{};
    return s.f();
}

Here is my current progress, this code works. I have a good feeling that the
rest is going to be easy. Except for deduction maybe, but I have a minor hu=
nch
that it might -just work- without any extra tinkering after everything else=
 has
been implemented.
Also yes, I know that `int f(this S*)` is not a valid declaration, I just
didn't have to change any member function call code for it to work this way=
 so
I made it my first goal to implement it this way.

Actually, I guess it's not explicitly invalid is it? I don't recall seeing =
it
in the pathological cases section of the paper, indeed, I just checked and
there doesn't seem to be mention of it. I believe it should probably be val=
id
though, not useful if you ask me. Even less so than the other pathological
cases (which I think might actually prove to be useful in some cases.) Howe=
ver,
regardless of my opinion, following the same direction as the original pape=
r, I
imagine it should be allowed. The class would just need an implicit convers=
ion
to pointer, maybe a warning would be in order though?=