On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:43 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:19 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Apr 8, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Erik Verbruggen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Pardon my ignorance, but why a warning? Or to rephrase it: why could this be >> problematic at all to fail with -Werror? >> >> >> There's no good reason to use "auto" in a situation where it will always >> infer as "id". People should either explicitly provide a more specific >> type, in which case uses of the value will actually be meaningfully >> type-checked, or they should type "id", which is shorter. >> >> >> … and it's not an error because this could legitimately happen during >> template instantiation, where we suppress the warning. > > But if the warning is appropriately suppressed/doesn't fire in > templates, why is that scenario a reason not to have it be an error? Because we tend not to have different *semantics* in templates vs. non-templates, even if we apply different heuristics for warnings. - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
