On Tuesday 08 December 2015 15:52:06 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:39:25PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > > OK, last try: > > > > - auto everywhere in C++ means that the type of the rhs defines the > > type of the variable > > it starts with the fact that you didn't specify that you mean just local > variables - it's your unstated assumption.
Wrong. This whole thread was never about anything but auto variables: On Thursday 03 December 2015 19:49:46 Marc Mutz wrote: > The wiki[1] currently contains some rules for how to use automatic type > deduction for variables (Q_C_AUTO_TYPE) that are very restrictive. > your triple emphasis that > it's not necessary *anywhere* in python implied that you do indeed mean > more than just locals. Only for someone who chimes in on a side-line without having read the thread's first mail... > > - each variable is still statically typed. > > - In particular, you cannot assign, say, an int to the variable and later > > > > assign it a string. > > > > - in Python, variables are declared with 'var' (IIRC) > > well, wrong. in python, you don't explicitly declare variables *at all*. > you only ever assign them. just so. > > "var" is c#'s auto. or js' variant (aka c#'s "dynamic"). these are > actually the two opposite concepts, so maybe you're the one who's > confused? ;) I don't *care* whether it's "var" or no keyword or JS variant or _whatever_. I said it's about the omission of the _type name_. You deliberately misunderstand and drag this subthread on and then zoom in on the first slip of mine. That's trolling at it's worst. > > - the simiarity with C++ auto is that no type name is visible > > > > - this is what I was referring to > > > > - the difference to C++ (auto or not) is that in Python, the variable is > > weakly > > > > typed / dynamically typed / duck-typed, however you may want to call > > it. > > > > - in particular, the variable can hold an integer first, then a string, > > and > > > > later an object of class type. Conversely, any type can be held in any > > variable. > > > > - this is orthogonal to the omission of the type name, which C++ auto > > and > > > > the whole thread is all about, thus *completely irrelevant* to the > > discussion. > > no, it's actually not orthogonal, and that's the whole point. in the > generic case, it's impossible to implement "auto *everywhere*" without > going dynamic. this is such a fundamental property of the language, that > it is patently absurd to infer anything from it for statically typed > languages, especially if you look at just one particular case. > > > I, indeed, have no idea why you ride that particular horse so > > vehemently. > > so let's state the purpose even more clearly: i'm giving you a lesson. > you tried to prove your point with a bogus analogy, and screwed up even > more by underestimating the downsides of the paradigm you were comparing > to. just admit it, and we're done - i'm actually convinced by your > non-bogus arguments. I should have known.... tr(Besserwisser). Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
