> -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Subject: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules? > >[..] > The remainder of the C++ world is moving towards an "always auto" scheme. > We don't need to go there, but I'd at least like to propose, for new code and > as > a drive-by, the *required* use of auto for: > <snip>
Just want to comment on this argument ... I know that some influential members are suggesting the AAA (almost always auto), but I think it's a bit overboard to claim that this is "the C++ world". Take for instance the coding guidelines of Clang: http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable Or google: https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#auto Even the C++ core guidelines don't explicitly say 'use auto always', but only to avoid redundant repetition of type names: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Res-auto So I think the ruling is still out whether the "AAA style" is really picked up by a lot of projects. Regards Kai _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
