rspec/rules/S3464/comments-and-links.adoc

=== on 10 Dec 2015, 17:32:09 Ann Campbell wrote:
Targeting to {cpp} because according to [~evgeny.mandrikov], 

____
from language specification - there is no limit

templates are turing complete

so in theory - this is valid

____

=== on 11 Dec 2015, 09:14:58 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I changed the description a bit

=== on 11 Dec 2015, 13:58:31 Ann Campbell wrote:
looks good [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 27 Sep 2018, 20:11:18 Loïc Joly wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] -I would remove {cpp}, because such inheritance is indeed totally valid, and is even a commonly used idiom see for instance the \https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern link-


After better understanding of this rule, I would still remove it for {cpp}, but for other reasons: 

* There could be places where that works, because template specialization could break the recursion
* In places where it does not work, since templates are fully resolved during compilation, the code would not compile, so no need to report anything during analysis.


=== on 27 Sep 2018, 20:48:07 Ann Campbell wrote:
Feel free, [~loic.joly] :-)