> -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Olivier Goffart > Sent: Friday, 4 December 2015 2:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules? > > 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. > > > When you have code like > > foo->bar()->setFaz(m_factory->createFaz(foo->bar()->type())); > > You don't see any type. > > This code that use auto is not less readable. Even if you don't know > what's the type of bar without looking it up. > > auto *bar = foo->bar(); > bar->setFaz(m_factory->createFaz(bar->type())); >
Isn't this kind of a bad example, because there was no type declared/visible in the first place? Anyway, if you're going to take the time to move the result of foo->bar() onto its own line, why not just declare a type? What benefit does auto give here? I really dislike hiding types behind a generic keyword. > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
