On 04.08.2017 01:26, 12345swordy wrote:
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.
Two parties are required for communication.
It was Kagamin who said:
The paper doesn't propose to enforce coding standards to the point you want.
This is in reference to your earlier:
Regardless, what impress me the most is the part where it came be used to
enforce coding standards at compile time. Which I am trying to look if it's
possible with d and sadly no luck.
Is it to much to ask for d developers to provide a way to enforce custom coding standards in a similar fashion that @nogc and @safe does?
Your answer to Kagamin was basically, "yes it does". You implied that
you want to be able to enforce custom coding standards similar to @nogc
and @safe, and then you said that the C++ proposal allows it. My
question was "why?". It would have been perfectly fine at that point for
you to clarify that that is not in fact what you meant, so next time
maybe just do that. :)
Which again is ridiculous, as c++ does not have gc
built in. Apparently you don't understand that.
There is nothing to understand. A GC does not need to be built-in for
someone to want to control its usage with an attribute.
