On: On leading underscores and names reserved by the C...

[mhh__]

As a language design point it's also saying that (this simple modification to C++)

    void add(const this, int x)

Is more readable than (IMO)

    void add(int x) const

[TeMPOraL → mhh__]

Might as well just always spell out the hidden "this" argument. Then all methods would look just like regular functions, allowing to simplify the language syntax and the standard, making it more concise and consistent, without sacrificing any functionality.

[kccqzy → mhh__]

You may like the "deducing this" proposal: http://wg21.link/P0847

(Scroll down to the "proposed syntax" section.)

[pronlover723 → mhh__]

That can go both ways?

I agree that I like when functions are not special so

   instance.add(10)

Is just sugar for

   add(instance, 10)

and you pass anything that fits as the first argument.

But, following the "syntactic sugar" is okay rule

    class Foo {
      add(int v);
    }

Is just syntactic sugar for

    void Foo.add(Foo this, int v);

... or something along those lines... ?