[OT] Generative C++

[12345swordy via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 20:56:38 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 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]
>
Not my problem if you don't like my answer. If you going to 
dispute my usage of the phrase "splinting hairs" by post a link 
to the said phrase and not actually point of the error of it then 
don't be surprised that if I dismiss it.

>> 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.)
>
I never said anything about a C++ @nogc implementation, that was 
you misreading my post. Which again is ridiculous, as c++ does 
not have gc built in. Apparently you don't understand that.

>> Clear difference.
>
> Clear, yet irrelevant.
>
Nope very relevant. Otherwise by that logic then c++03 have 
variadic templates by using the boost tuple library.
>
> 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.
>
>
It quite understandable that you misunderstood my post that I had 
wrote.