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.
