> If the language spec is such that operator -> can’t have a sensible signature, (...) The language spec has zero to do with this. You're commenting on a discu

> If the language spec is such that operator -> can’t have a sensible signature, (...) The language spec has zero to do with this. You're commenting on a discussion on static code analyzers. The specific gotcha you're commenting on mentions that the overloaded operator -> from smart pointers returns a raw pointer to the object being managed, which apparently causes static code analyzers to lose context (it's a raw pointer). The gotcha just mentions a way to help out static code analyzers to not lose context. There's nothing wrong with the spec. At most there's a tip to help out current static code analyzers keep track of semantics. The worst part of people criticizing C++ is that 9 times out of 10 they base their criticism on ignorance or misconceptions.