Proposal: Use member access operator `.` to call a macro

// look at this:
log.warn!("Failed to save file \"{}\": {:?}", path.to_string_lossy(), e);

// instead of:
warn!(log, "Failed to save file \"{}\": {:?}", path.to_string_lossy(), e);
log.warn(format!("Failed to save file \"{}\": {:?}", path.to_string_lossy(), e));

There are several advantages: First, it looks more coherent. And second, it can avoid the duplication of macro names (or something related to scope? I'm not very familiar).

Maybe "member macro" can be written like this:

impl Logger {
    macro_rules! warn {
        ($($arg:tt)*) => (write!($self, '[WARN] ', $($arg)*))
    }
}

Thanks of its new syntax (macro_rules in impl), I think it will be difficult to implement.

Start by reviewing the proposal's Rust examples for member macro calls and the suggested macro_rules syntax in impl blocks. The issue names no files, tests, or implementation entry points, and does not define a concrete completion criterion beyond evaluating whether this language feature can be implemented.