[OT] Generative C++

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 03.08.2017 22:06, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 19:45:12 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 03.08.2017 21:28, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 19:02:17 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>> On 03.08.2017 20:32, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> On 02.08.2017 15:50, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> How would you use the proposed features to implement @safe or @nogc 
>>>> within C++?
>>>
>>> I am not interested in arguing about what I said or I didn't said.
>>
>> I don't understand the relevance of this sentence.
>>
>>> Regardless what you asking is ridiculous, as 1.) there is no gc exist 
>>> in c++ in the first place
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehm_garbage_collector
>>
>>> 2.)it's still a concept at this point of time which may be rejected 
>>> in the future.
>>
>> How does that make my question ridiculous?
> You are splinting hairs here.

That's a quite poetic way to describe the futility of my endeavor to 
engage you in a productive discussion. Also see 
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/splinting . [1]

> The gc that you linked is a third party 
> library, that is not the same as having it built into the language 
> itself.

The C++ @nogc implementation would also not be built-in, and whether or 
not the memory allocator in question is built-in has no bearing on 
whether my question was ridiculous or not. (I.e. you are splitting hairs.)

> Clear difference.

Clear, yet irrelevant.


BTW: If you are not interested in actually discussing the applicability 
of the proposal to enforcing coding standards to the point you outlined 
(@safe and @nogc), we can stop at any time. I was just curious how you 
would achieve this.



[1] Note that here I was deliberately splitting hairs, to demonstrate 
the difference.