https://www.xkcd.com/1028/
https://www.xkcd.com/1860/

On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 18:32:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> "Enable writing
> compiler-enforced
> patterns for any purpose:
> coding standards
> (e.g., many
> Core Guidelines
> “enforce” rules)
> "
>
> Yes, it does, right there. Are you reading the same paper that I am?

It works only on declarations, like D.

On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 12:47:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 12:34:21 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>
> I can understand that you don't want to be trolled.
> Many other people feel the same way.
> Therefore I'd ask you to reflect on what it means to be trolling.

Why? I decided not to respond to him anymore, as I have stated before I am not interested in arguing on whatever I said or not. Even more so when this forum doesn't allow editing posts for clarification.

On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:07:51 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 18:32:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> "Enable writing
>> compiler-enforced
>> patterns for any purpose:
>> coding standards
>> (e.g., many
>> Core Guidelines
>> “enforce” rules)
>> "
>>
>> Yes, it does, right there. Are you reading the same paper that I am?
>
> It works only on declarations, like D.

I know that, what is your point?

On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:11:11 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> I know that, what is your point?

this: https://forum.dlang.org/post/ikavudrxltlbuceeaxkj@forum.dlang.org

On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:11:11 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 16:07:51 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 18:32:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> "Enable writing
>>> compiler-enforced
>>> patterns for any purpose:
>>> coding standards
>>> (e.g., many
>>> Core Guidelines
>>> “enforce” rules)
>>> "
>>>
>>> Yes, it does, right there. Are you reading the same paper that I am?
>>
>> It works only on declarations, like D.
>
> 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.

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:
>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 18:32:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>> "Enable writing
>>>> compiler-enforced
>>>> patterns for any purpose:
>>>> coding standards
>>>> (e.g., many
>>>> Core Guidelines
>>>> “enforce” rules)
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does, right there. Are you reading the same paper that I am?
>>>
>>> It works only on declarations, like D.
>>
>> 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

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:
>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 18:32:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> It works only on declarations, like D.
>>>
>>> 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
I was thinking along the lines of "this and only this function body that you have to check"

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:
>>>> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 18:32:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>>>> "Enable writing
>>>>> compiler-enforced
>>>>> patterns for any purpose:
>>>>> coding standards
>>>>> (e.g., many
>>>>> Core Guidelines
>>>>> “enforce” rules)
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it does, right there. Are you reading the same paper that I am?
>>>>
>>>> It works only on declarations, like D.
>>>
>>> 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.
Which is why Timon asked how you'd write the code.
Because you have to try doing it to see that it is indeed not possible to the level that is needed for those constructs.

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.