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.
