On 2016-06-01 11:09, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
... What I mean by non-friend member is something that is currently not supported in C++, which is defined/declared/called using the member function syntax, but has no access to the private or protected members of the class. So:
struct foo; //incomplete void foo::do_something();
would be semantically the same as:
struct foo; //incomplete void do_something( foo * );
the only difference being in syntax: the former would be callable using the dot syntax.
Uh, understand. So, it's actually member SYNTAX for non-member functions. Exactly as in the proposal that Peter sited. So, how the "non-friend" qualification's got into the discussion? It's not in the proposal. Friend or no-friend has no difference, right? That brings me back to the original Robert's question about accessibility scope that you addressed with "friend"... Something that I feel is "restoring data+behavior association after breaking it".