Question

Wouldn’t it make sense if p->m was just syntactic sugar for (*p).m? Essentially, every operator-> that I have ever written could have been implemented as follows:

Foo::Foo* operator->()
{
    return &**this;
}

Is there any case where I would want p->m to mean something else than (*p).m?

Answer 1

operator->() has the bizarre distinction of implicitly being invoked repeatedly while the return type allows it. The clearest way to show this is with code:

struct X {
    int foo;
};

struct Y {
    X x;
    X* operator->() { return &x; }
};

struct Z {
    Y y;
    Y& operator->() { return y; }
};

Z z;
z->foo = 42;          // Works!  Calls both!

I recall an occasion when this behaviour was necessary to enable an object to behave as a proxy for another object in a smart-pointer-like context, though I can’t remember the details. What I do remember is that I could only get the behaviour to work as I intended using the a->b syntax, by using this strange special case; I could not find a way to get (*a).b to work similarly.

Not sure that this answers your question; really I’m saying, “Good question, but it’s even weirder than that!”