Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:25:14PM +0100, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Friday 4. December 2015 14:11:48 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:07:10PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > And as an aside, since it has been mentioned in this thread: in Python
> > > _all_ variables are 'auto'. All. Without exception. Are Python
> > > programmers more intelligent? Or do they just tolerate more pain? :)
> > 
> > i'd suggest the latter.
> > no, really. people use external static checkers because the language
> > lacks the feature.
> > the lack of static typing is a common feature of scripting languages and
> > makes them convenient to a degree, but it is an utter nightmare for any
> > "real" software development. i really wouldn't want to go there.
> 
> But auto is still staticaly typed.
> 
that's why using a scripting language as a source of arguments wasn't a
very wise move tactically, even as an aside. ;)
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development