On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:54:44 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:36:22 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:32:27 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:27:47 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:11:11 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:07:51 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that, what is your point?
>>>>
>>>> It means it can't be done.
>>>> Do do recursive flow-sensitive checks, (like those needed to enforce 'pure' or indeed '@nogc'), you'd have to write a self-modifying meta-program.
>>>> Which you cannot do.
>>> I wasn't thinking about recursive checking when I was talking about enforcing code standards.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>> enforcing a standard on the top-level only does not really enforce anything.
> (I really wish this would be a proper fourm, so I can bold things)
> Call it a poor mans enforcer if you wish, that the decision that I decided to make.

That is not possible in D.
And I doubt it's possible with meta-classes but I might be wrong since I have only skimmed the paper.

To answer the question you posted a while back:
> 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?

The answer is yes. It's too much to ask of us. Since for the time being we lack in quality menpower.

Here is what would be needed to provide that:

1. specify a programatically accessible version of the whole AST.
2. specify a programatically accessible way to transform that AST.
3. Used the transformed ast.

Which is a lot of work it done correctly.
On top of being a feature which is highly prone to dubious uses.
And that clashes with safety guarantees D tries to provide.

On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 07:49:02 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Someone made an interesting proposal to C++: https://herbsutter.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/p0707r1.pdf
>
> Thoughts?

Won't this abstraction compete directly with concepts (lite) and even with templates? Metaclasses appear to be at least as expressive as these two constructs.

On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 07:49:02 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Someone made an interesting proposal to C++: https://herbsutter.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/p0707r1.pdf
>
> Thoughts?

Sutter gave a longer presentation on his proposal at CppCon, which was posted online late last month and is the most-viewed talk from the conference after Bjarne's keynote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AfRAVcThyA

I enjoyed watching Regehr's talk on undefined behavior, particularly since I hit that shift UB issue in D some time back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1COuU2vU_w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPyLrJED0zQ
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xxqdnjscsdtbbwkmalfp@forum.dlang.org